Grazie per la segnalazione, Daniela.
Se capisco bene la proposta irlandese (non l'ho letta) fa diventare di
default quello che nell'articolo 38 del Digital Services Act era solo
un'opzione garantita all'utente
----
In addition to the requirements set out in Article 27, providers of very
large online platforms and of very large online search engines that use
recommender systems shall provide at least one option for each of their
recommender systems which is not based on profiling as defined in
Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
----
(l'articolo 4 richiede che i recommender systems mostrino in modo
trasparente i criteri su cui sono basati)
Sai se nella loro proposta le "big platform" sono equivalenti ai "very
large online platform" del DSA o c'è un'altra definizione?
Concordo comunque che sarebbe una mossa importante: passare da un
default di "opt-out" a un default di "opt-in" sarebbe secondo me una
prevenzione necessaria (anche se non risolutiva, concordo con Giacomo)
per difendere i cittadini dallo strapotere dei GAFAM.
Ciao, Enrico
Il 31/12/2023 19:05, Daniela Tafani ha scritto:
The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to regulate Big Tech
by Zephyr Teachout and Roger McNamee
Dublin, Ireland, was stunned a month ago by riots that transformed its downtown
into chaos, the worst rioting in decades, stemming from far-right online rumors
about an attack on children.
The riots, like Jan. 6, appear to be a direct outgrowth of the amplification
ecosystem supported by social media networks such as TikTok, Google’s YouTube
and Meta’s Instagram, which likely keep their European headquarters in Dublin
for tax reasons.
Ireland, long ridiculed for bowing to Big Tech, has now come out with a
powerful proposal to address the problems of algorithmic amplification. Ireland
set up Coimisiún na Meán, a new enforcer, this year to set rules for digital
platforms.
It has proposed a simple, easily enforceable rule that could change the game:
All recommender systems based on intimately profiling people should be turned
off by default.
In practice, that means that the big platforms cannot automatically run
algorithms that use information about a person’s political views, sex life,
health or ethnicity. A person will be able to switch an algorithm on, but those
toxic algorithms will no longer be on by default. Users will still have access
to algorithmic amplification, but they will have to opt in to get it.
Today, algorithms feed each user different information. They derive their power
from the trove of personal data that platforms acquire about users, data that
enables the identification and exploitation of emotional weak points, all to
maximize engagement.
Platforms do not acknowledge responsibility for downstream consequences. Some
users respond best to cat videos, others to hate speech, disinformation and
conspiracy theories. For many, the response to harmful content is involuntary,
driven by flight or fight. Either way, users spend more time on the platform,
which allows the company to make more money by showing them ads.
Artificially amplifying outrage may be lucrative, but it carries a terrible
cost. Recommender systems enable to migrate from the fringe to the mainstream.
An investigation revealed that Meta’s algorithms were key contributors to the
murderous hate that cost thousands of people their lives in Myanmar’s 2017
Rohingya genocide.
Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, revealed in 2021 that Meta had known the
danger of its algorithm for years. As long ago as 2016, Meta’s internal
research had reported that “64 percent of all extremist group joins are due to
our recommendation tools.”
It continued: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”
When 37,000 people allowed researchers to monitor their YouTube experience,
nearly all the nasty videos they had encountered were pushed into their feed by
YouTube’s algorithm. An experiment using simulated users found that Facebook,
Instagram and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, recommended
antisemitic and conspiracy content to test users as young as 14 years old.
Earlier this year, the surgeon general spoke about the danger of algorithms
that promote suicide and self-harm. A recent experiment by Amnesty
International proves the point: TikTok’s algorithm recommended videos
encouraging suicide to a test user posing as a 13-year-old only an hour after
the account was created.
Recommender systems didn’t really take hold until 2010, and we’ve tried
trusting the Big Tech platforms, but 13 years into the experiment, with plenty
of data showing harm, we cannot trust technology companies to regulate
themselves in the public interest.
We do not want the government to be in the business of sorting through what is
and is not harmful if amplified. The brilliance of the Ireland model is that it
offers a way forward: rules that are content-neutral, giving users control of
one critical aspect of their online experience.
After years of being a tax haven for Big Tech, Ireland is now offering the
world a groundbreaking rule to protect democracy, public health and public
safety. In under nine months, Coimisiún na Meán has gone from initial launch to
tackling the machine at the heart of the disinformation crisis.
The rule is necessary because current European Union regulations aren’t working
and the new Digital Services Act is not designed to tackle the core problem.
Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, tech firms are already
supposed to get a person’s “explicit” (two-step) consent to process inferences
about their political views, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or health. Several
complaints that the big firms have failed to seek or receive this consent have
not been resolved years after being brought. But for over five years, Big
Tech’s primary General Data Protection Regulation authority, which is in
Ireland, failed to notice or act.
Europe often trumpets its regulatory leadership in the world. But the so-called
“Brussels Effect” of other countries heeding its rules began to dissipate when
Europe failed to enforce its most famous law: the General Data Protection
Regulation. The European Commission is understandably focused on the Digital
Services Act, which goes into effect next month, but EU policymakers should
welcome the new Irish rules.
Coimisiún na Meán’s bold move would ultimately make the Digital Services Act
far more successful. Europe and the Irish government are stepping up at last to
regulate harmful technology products. Social media may become social again.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4380369-the-eu-should-support-irelands-bold-move-to-regulate-big-tech/
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
--
-- EN
https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html
======================================================
Prof. Enrico Nardelli
Presidente di "Informatics Europe"
Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI
Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma
home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli
blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/
tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699
mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: [email protected]
online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont
======================================================
--_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
