The Australian government is considering allowing users to opt in or opt out of social media algorithms, and is looking at a recent UK ban on depictions of strangulation and suffocation in pornography.
The social services minister, Tanya Plibersek, said social media was “playing a huge role” in the increase in sexual violence among teenagers and choking, and confirmed the options were being considered as the government develops its second action plan to end family and domestic violence against women and children.
It follows the death of a 16-year-old girl in Sydney after a suspected sexual strangulation act. Guardian Australia reported on Thursday that a source informed about the case said the teenager was believed to have become unconscious as a result of asphyxiation during sexual intercourse, often referred to as “choking”. No arrests have been made…
Labor will also soon begin consultation on a digital duty of care bill that will put the onus on tech companies, including AI companies, to make online spaces safer for all users.
Plibersek said the digital duty of care legislation, as well as a second round of privacy reforms, could also help tackle camera-equipped smartglasses, which she said she had serious concerns about.
That alone is a very very good idea - provided there’s a robust verification process with legal teeth to ensure social media companies actually comply.
I’ts going to have to be more specific. People have started using the word “algorithm” as a synonym for “demon”, but sorting chronologically is an algorithm.
You know perfectly well than when people talk about “the algorithm” in the context of social media, they’re talking very specifically about the automated mental manipulation techniques put in place by the Big Tech companies running the social media platforms.
No, I don’t know that perfectly well and neither do you. The higher than normal concentration of programming socks types here on Lemmy knows that, but the average Tide Pod Challenger out there on the street has probably only ever heard the word “algorithm” used in the context of social media dark patterns, and on top of THEM there’s the lobotomized luddites that make up the world’s congresses and parliaments who would ban dihydrogen monoxide if given ten grand each.
Hate to be that guy, but I think its important for people to understand that the Luddites were anti-capitalism, not anti-technology.
How about limiting displayed posts to only ones from people and groups that you have specifically opted into, and those posts have to be displayed in chronological order and there is to be no weighting or preferencing of the resulting corpus of posts presented to the user.
I will make an allowance for “discovery”, where no more than 10 percent of displayed posts can be from a randomised selection of geographically local users/groups and 5 percent of truly random global users/groups, (if a general location of the user is explicitly provided by them), and once shown, posts from that selection cannot be shown again for 7 days.
I don’t think that’s a concern. Compliance would be pretty obvious.
What they should do is remove the age verification on having an account, and instead age verify people who want to turn on algorithmic recommendations. That would be far more effective, far more palatable, and far less privacy invasive.
I know a few kids that are more savvy with social media than their parents.
They should have social media bans for the older generation, sort of like carousel from Logan’s Run, but instead of being euthanised, you get your Facebook account closed.