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.
You mean the milkshake consent video wasn’t enough?
Australia could do a lot of things with a decent government, but for some reason most Australians flat out refuse to vote for decent government.
Probably related to social media algorithms.
But didn’t they already force porn users into VPN, thus losing any regional control of the content?
The Australian government is considering allowing users to opt in or opt out of social media algorithms
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 that 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.
the lobotomized luddites
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.
Yes let’s start banning specific acts in porn… That’s not a slippery slope at all.
Yes let’s start banning specific acts in porn… That’s not a slippery slope at all.
I generally agree with you on principle. But I’ll play devil’s advocate here:
CSAM is prohibited because those consuming CSAM create a demand for those producing it, who in turn abuse children to produce it, thereby creating victims. People add all kinds of moral reasons on top of that to justify interfering with what people get off on, as always. But ultimately, the reason why CSAM is banned is to protect children.
Similarly, I can conceive that strangulation porn is something children want to try, and the ban aims at protecting them from themselves.
Teenagers exploring sexual practices and choking themselves is nothing new: a number of them die every year of asphyxiation, and it’s something schools and parents have been fighting for as long as I can remember - and I’m not a young man anymore. This strangulation porn ban thing is something that can conceivably be a response to that phenomenon as well.
However, I will say this: if that’s indeed what that is, it’ll probably cause a chilling effect on free speech more than it’ll help children, as usual.
How about mandatory disclaimer then: this is not real, not normal, don’t do this, for entertainment only
You think horny teenagers are going to pause to read a legal disclaimer?
yeah its not my bag but we know auto erotic asphyxiation is a thing so people im sure like to give and recieve this kind of thing like a lot of sex things. if anything lack of porn means you got to get your kicks by doing it.
IIRC I’m pretty sure it’s already banned under Australian law. While I dislike the type of person who uses the term “nanny state”, it is a reasonably accurate descriptor.
I’m happy that YouTube lets you use the algorithm or not, but it seems when people have the option most choose the algorithm
I think it is generally understood that algorithm in the context of social media recommendations is a shortcut for the engagement algorithms companies use to increase time on platform. I don’t think we need to spell out everything in detail when context provides the necessary clues.
In YouTube the algorithm is generally taken as the thing that chooses what to play next if you have autoplay turned on, which picks what to show in recommended video displays
In general it’s the system to keep putting stuff in front of you to try to maximise your watch time
But in this thread we’re talking specifically about YouTube and how close or not its subscriptions tab gets you out from under the algorithm
We can spell out specifics when talking about a specific feature of a specific platform
This is why the government should also do an information campaign about the media bubbles and echo chambers caused by algorithms. If they really want to improve social cohesion, they need to help people understand when they are being isolated.
The government does not want to improve social cohesion, they are deliberately enabling the opposite.
That was an option??? I use custom filters in my adblocker to hide recommendations.
You can use the subscriptions tab to see only the videos from channels you subscribe to
You still get recommended videos on the sides and at the end of videos.
You do. Hopefully a law like this would hide that if you opted out
no idea why anyone would use youtube any other way, it’s a mainly trash platform. subscribed is the way to go, the same applies to reddit, and most likely lemmy too (I have never looked at it outside of subscribed)
I let the algorithm choose when I’m playing music, up until it adds a 3 hour live performance to what 'til then had been 3 - 5 minute music videos
Otherwise it’s just subscriptions
I think some people see the selection of subscriptions as too hard
without setting it to subscriptions I get far too many trashtubers and right wing content
the music rabbit hole is still generally okay, but I feel it used to be better.
This was one of the terrifying aspects of Labor’s social media legislation. I sent a letter to the communications minister arguing that I had done everything to provide my tweens/teens with safe access to Youtube with available tech and accounts played an important role. While Youtube should be forced to give up control over shorts and algorithmic targeting, removing parental control over age limited accounts and subscriptions was a disaster for responsible parenting.
I got a lazy form response from the staff. I understand why people look to shitty populist alternatives sometimes.
I often forget that there are decent parents out there, I imagine the government do as well, or at least have no respect for them.
It cannot be easy to be a decent parent these days with all of these creeps in charge of tech.
Agree. I am glad I am not in that demographic anymore. I worry for my grandson and all the other children growing up in the current environment.
Society seems to be sucking itself down further into a moral abyss and the big industries are monetising it all as we burn the planet, abuse the innocent and war with each other in small and huge ways.
