9 ms·

China has pioneered a law to empower people over algorithms?

136 points by AlbertoRomGar 4y ago

zeruch 4y ago
..does anyone else find some small irony in this, given that China is also the country fixated on CCTVs and social scoring of its own citizens in a panopticon of its own design? I don't disagree with the premise of people > algorithm, just noting the almost strange disconnect between it and the underlying polity and its tendencies.
- culi 4y ago
  China has recently had a lot of really similar rulings. The issue is that filter of western media wouldn't let you hear about those as often as you hear about CCTVs. Did you know their equivalent of the supreme court recently ruled that people can't be filmed in shopping malls (and other public spaces) without their consent?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- analyst74 4y ago
  Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media. If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions. CCTV protects people from street crime; credit score seems to provide tremendous value in establishing trust between strangers, let's build a better version; people > algorithms, let's regulate the latter.
  - alphabetting 4y ago
    >If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens Why would anyone do that given treatment of Uyghurs?
    - bckr 4y ago
      It's a mental exercise similar to watching a movie."Willing suspension of disbelief", it's called. Why would you care whether Mr. Big Muscles is winning or not given that he's just pretending to be the hero of the universe? From the Chinese perspective, what their government is doing to the Uyghurs is justified because terrorist separatist muslims. And anyway, from the Chinese perspective, nothing really bad is happening to the Uyghurs anyway, they're just being reformed into good citizens.
      - snapcaster 4y ago
        If you're American I'm sure you can relate to the Chinese here. I almost never think about the millions of dead Iraqi people my tax money contributed to
        alphabetting 4y ago
        The major difference is in America you can criticize what America did to Iraqis at the top of your lungs and work to get different leaders elected. Can't do the same in China without consequences.
        scarecrowbob 4y ago
        I can complain all I want and work for as much change as I'd like. Completely without any sort of consequences in the world.
        alphabetting 4y ago
        can't criticize the govt in effort to elect new leaders in China which was my point.
        scarecrowbob 4y ago
        I presume you understood mine.
  - iqihs 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eximius 4y ago
    And "reeducating" non-Han minorities is also for good of its citizens? Those who disagree with the party? A benevolent authoritarian government could be very efficient and good, but we still reject authoritarianism because it is bad.
  - tauwauwau 4y ago
    Path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don't think their are any good leaders.
  - zeruch 4y ago
    "Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media." No, I'm seeing it through taking a series of factually established premises, and comparing them. Critical thinking (however anecdotally a position one launches from) isn't a byproduct of "Western Media". "If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions." Are they? "CCTV protects people from street crime" ...or just makes investing in ski masks popular? Your statement is so absent any context (who has access to the CCTV, what legal recourse is there for auditing the footage from a privacy or legal evidentiary perspective), are there controls to prevent abuse, etc. I said nothing of a credit score. I said a social score, which is a very different, and much more contentious issue: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-e...
    - Aperocky 4y ago
      > Critical thinking Most people consider themselves critical thinkers, but subconsciously apply a bias on the sources they read. For instance they would go to depth on and apply every single possible suspicion on news that are against their perception, or failing that, just simply labeling it as 'false news'. At the same time, news or information that conforms to their bias are accepted as truth usually without any questions asked. It's alarming because most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe - because you are already critical of those that are against it by default. That is what true critical thinking is.
      - zeruch 4y ago
        Everyone applies bias at some level, period. That said, the threshold for lazy loading bias can be significantly different for people, and trying to become a Vulcan-Mentat combo might not be the most ideal goal. Actually applying some real rigor and not just resorting to convenient heuristics (e.g. "Western media", "MSM" , "leftist" or "rightist" or several other "ists" reflexively) usually is a good start. " most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe" Agreed.
  - andreilys 4y ago
    If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, Please explain how the continued lockdown in Shanghai is “the Chinese government” doing good for its citizens vs. not wanting to lose face on an absurd zero covid policy?
- esjeon 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure CCP is trying its best to protect itself. It basically wants to be the single source of truth in the country, but algorithms interfere with this goal by providing "bubbles" to users. Once a person falls into a bubble, his view will start diverging from what CCP wants their people to see, causing instability inside the society. This is obviously a huge threat to their authority.
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    This makes a ton of sense. Seems the next frontier for the CCP is to gain control of tech companies, most of which could be peppered with talent that has studied in the West
    - rakkhi 4y ago
      Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
  - rakkhi 4y ago
    Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
    - zeruch 4y ago
Apocryphon 4y ago
To all of those skeptical of this law because it was written in China- what’s wrong with importing it to the U.S., the EU, or the U.K., adapting it to local characteristics, and then using it? Even if you might question the spirit of it in the PRC, what’s wrong with the letter of it in a different country? Isn’t the idea still sound
- mromanuk 4y ago
  I'm with you, I'm reading lots of comments criticizing this because it's from China government. Are people rejecting merchandise because it was manufactured in China? They don't are about that. Why should we care if it's a good law? Don't shoot the messenger.
joemazerino 4y ago
China provides this law because they already track everything every citizen does. This is a virtue signal from a country gripped by a brutal and oppressive government.
- nayuki 4y ago
  Yes. You really can't take China's laws and proclamations at face value. Look at how many times they tried to "ban" Bitcoin or VPNs, yet they keep coming back. China does what China wants, and the written laws are a smokescreen.
- user_7832 4y ago
  I don't fully agree that that is the reasoning. Addictive algorithms or not, Facebook/TikTok et al can and does track you comfortably (as do most states including China). But if you observe some recent laws you'll see that the government sometimes does do things that are (what it thinks) is good for its citizens. For example there was a recent law limiting gaming hours for children. Agree or disagree with the implementation, a state can simultaneously be doing terrible things while also trying to do good things. Governments are not a monolithic unit.
  - LordGronk 4y ago
    I think the issue he is pointing out is that China has plenty of laws that, as written, guarantee the exact opposite of what the state actually does. For instance, article 35 of the PRC's constitution guarantees "freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.", yet that is obviously not the case in practice.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > Agree or disagree with the implementation, a state can simultaneously be doing terrible things while also trying to do good things. Governments are not a monolithic unit. Ah! So when enough people disagree with the government then the solution is to change the government! You can change the government in China, right? Right?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
charcircuit 4y ago
There is too much content on big platforms to make unpersonalized recommendation systems viable. Even something simple like a feed showing you videos from people you follow is a recommendation system personalized to you based off the users that you personally follow. Without personalization you get stuff like trending videos with maybe new videos sprinkled in too help new videos catch traction. YouTube's trending page is pretty much universally hated by everyone I've talked to.
mc32 4y ago
I think we need to be careful in how this is read. It has some great public interest points, but also includes some language which more or less would prevent sentiment that was contrary to regime policies, etc. But again, lots of positives too. >"“Algorithmic recommendation service providers shall...:” Art 6: “… actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.” Art 8: “… not set up algorithm models that induce users to indulge in addiction, excessive consumption, etc. …” Art 13: “… not generate synthetic false news information or disseminate it. …” Art 14: “… not use algorithms to falsely register accounts, illegal transaction accounts, manipulate user accounts, or falsely like, comment, or forward …” Art 16: “… notify users in a conspicuous manner of their provision of algorithmic recommendation services, and publicize the basic principles, purposes, and main operating mechanisms …” Articles 18 and 19 are similar but emphasize the particularities of minors and the elderly — demographics that have very particular needs and requirements (e.g. minors shouldn’t have easy access to unsafe content and elders have specific medical necessities). Art 17: “… provide users with options that are not tailored to their personal characteristics, or provide users with a convenient option to turn off the algorithmic recommendation service. …”"
- jpgvm 4y ago
  Well it's China. In the context of their system I think most Chinese would consider it to be a good law. It takes power away from private companies and extends the Chinese governments power to "ensure stability". That latter half most Westerners would probably find unsavory but it's just how China operates.
user_named 4y ago
Well, at least empower the government over corporate algorithms.
duxup 4y ago
Does this stop their government from doing it? Are the courts independent enough to even utilize this law?
- kwere 4y ago
  no, a lot of human rights activist/lawyers that abided by the written laws (china constitution) were persecuted. [0] From the chinese affair office in lithuania : "The Constitution provides for a wide range of political rights to citizens. In addition to the right to vote and to be elected mentioned above, citizens also enjoy freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. There is no news censorship in China." [1] [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-human-rights-defenders-given-long-jail-terms-tortured-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-human-... [1] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm# https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm#
beloch 4y ago
I'd be concerned if the U.S. passed this law. Who defines what "good" or "positive energy"? Who defines what is fake news? Does providing users information that is "not tailored to their personal characteristics" mean that it's, instead, tailored to the state's preferences? The language of the law sounds nice and there are aspects that probably meet goals that are not necessarily harmful to people (e.g. Addicted people are less productive, so avoiding addiction is good for the state as well as the individual), but it definitely could be used by a state to control what people see online. That's political control of media. If you wouldn't be concerned if this passed under Biden, how about if it were passed under Trump? Remember what he called "fake news"? How much more should we be concerned about it being passed in China, where state control over media is absolute? e.g. Anything involving the Tienanmen square massacre is virtually guaranteed to be classified as "fake news", "not good", or "not conducive of positive energy" by this law. How do companies like facebook ensure they're compliant with the law then? Censorship. This isn't good news. This is absolutely dystopian.
- sebow 4y ago
  Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage. As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
throwaway15908 4y ago
Next step, "for the wellbeing of its citizens", the chinese government will stop censoring too critical content for a healther relationship to issues to discuss. I hope this trend continues.
- rdxm 4y ago
dontcare007 4y ago
Now if they would just respect human rights...
louloulou 4y ago
lol
tzm 4y ago
> "China is leading the way towards a better relationship with algorithms" Speechless. There is plenty of evidence to counter this point. China already tracks what every citizen does. The author comes off as a pundit for the CCP.
- StopDarkPattern 4y ago
  Except china rigs every single request? How does it even matter at that point. ROFL.
- mromanuk 4y ago
  Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    Way to ignore the parallels of data tracking and "algo" fairness. What do you suppose the said algo _uses_, hmm? Perhaps the data captured by the government?
    - mromanuk 4y ago
      Governments tends to hoard information, they just store everything they can for "future references". Later on the process they can use some types of algorithm to dig and cross information for a target or whatever, but is a different matter. Nobody is going to say "ok track me, but don't use an algorithm" that would be the lesser problem, obviously the tracking is the issue there. As I said before, is a different discussion.
  - x-complexity 4y ago
    > Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter. They aren't separate, in fact in the case of regulations, the subjects are deeply intertwined with each other: The introduction of "allowed algorithms" is a clear sign that the government in question has a vested interest in controlling the information feeds of their population. Slippery slope be damned, it creates a path for the government to say: "Hey, we want you to use this algorithm instead & set it as the default: Nothing suspicious, just use it. ;)" Even if the algorithm in question is just "sort by newest", the fact that a body of control is exerting influence on which algorithms are allowed & what is the default algorithm to be used sets a precedence of control that results in more power being sent to the government: Don't like the algorithms being used? Have the government solve it!
ozfive 4y ago
This Medium post reads like propaganda/promotional material. Algorithms can also do good at burying propaganda. What you want/need or believe you want/need may also be dangerous to you. I am against predatory algorithms but this post makes me recoil with all of the promotion that comes with it. Not sure what to think anymore. China has a history of running propeganda/promotion campaigns including running them as ads at the beginning of YouTube videos to get the first word in as an attempt to control the narrative.
- bllguo 4y ago
  I am seriously concerned with the rampant paranoia and lack of critical thinking in these accusations. People genuinely think the Chinese government is sponsoring Medium posts for niche audiences and that they have any interest in HN commenters? It's simply beyond comprehension. Y'all latched onto what, < $1M? in Russian FB ad spend and let your imaginations run to the moon and back.
  - kwere 4y ago
    the chinese government creates youtube channels wich engage in genocidial denial [0], i believe paying for a normal PR campaign is normal [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKSswCwEMg&ab_channel=JerryHuang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKSswCwEMg&ab_channel=Jerry...
dirtyid 4y ago
PRC's been fairly prescient around regulating/managing the internet/tech, folks here whine, but west increasingly adopting PRC censorship and filtering, and eventually we will see sense in regulating algos. Tech was already in crosshairs, PRC simply more able to execute. Just an aside, new focus on algo mirrors PRC developing concepts around warfare, from informatization and now intelligization. Former about info, latter about algos. I hope those terms get more use.
lonk11 4y ago
"Art 6: “… actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.”" It depends on who it is "positive" and "good" for. For the society, the government, or the user? I would like to see algorithms that focus on the user. For that you want to have algorithms that are understandable and controllable by the user. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with the algorithms employed for recommendations today. They use neural networks that are hard to understand not only to the users but to the developers of these systems. Look at the abuse prevention technique used by DALL-E 2 [1]: "Our content policy does not allow users to generate violent, adult, or political content, among other categories. We won’t generate images if our filters identify text prompts and image uploads that may violate our policies." I worry that the algorithm regulation will focus on forcing recommendation systems to use similar controls and then those who control the filters of what is "not good" will effectively control what is acceptable to learn and talk about. I'd like to propose an alternative - design the recommendation algorithm that gives control to the user to decide what is good for them. I'm building https://linklonk.com https://linklonk.com as an experiment in this area and the algorithm is detailed here: https://linklonk.com/item/3292763817660940288 https://linklonk.com/item/3292763817660940288 [1] - https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ https://openai.com/dall-e-2/
- d0mine 4y ago
  Look at how media is aligned (talking points are successfully disseminated, dissent opinions are suppressed). Algorithms just help automate it.
yalogin 4y ago
Will that ever happen in the US? I cannot imagine it. A ton of companies will be out of business. A lot of our services will be forced to move to a paid model. I would love it but I can see Facebook and google, among others, spending a ton of money to fight it and essentially not let it happen.
- danamit 4y ago
  China was so ahead of the curve when it comes to private companies collecting and mining data. Ant Group is a big example of that, which was stopped by the government (power struggle or not?). When it comes to US, Americans are blind that they are being tracked too, while it isn't clear if China's so called score systems affect the average citizen, credit scores in US aren't any better. Also the tech industry banning all kind of political dissidents, them losing their jobs, etc... even a potential employer Googling you doesn't sound right to me. If the West and East are having the same outcomes, but the overlords are different being corpos in the West and party officials in the East.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kwere 4y ago
"The Constitution provides for a wide range of political rights to citizens. In addition to the right to vote and to be elected mentioned above, citizens also enjoy freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. There is no news censorship in China." [1] (chinese affair office in lithuania) this is the CCP, pure comedy [1] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm# https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm#
AlbertoRomGar 4y ago
A month ago, China made effective a new regulation that will force companies like Alibaba, Tencent, or ByteDance to give users the option to turn off recommendations, among other measures targeting algorithms to protect minors and the elderly, ensure fair pricing, prohibit fake news generation, or reduce addiction. Is this the beginning of a world optimized for well-being instead of engagement?
- loceng 4y ago
  Does this include removing the layer below this layer of the filtering/censoring of what content can reach the masses to begin with? Is it a double standard and/or hypocritical and/or virtue signalling otherwise? "These individual companies aren't capable of doing this for the betterment of society but we are"?
- Proven 4y ago
- charcircuit 4y ago
  TikTok would suck so much if they blocked you from your Follows recommendation feed and For You recommendation feed. The platform doesn't have a nonpersonalized feed so you will have to search for content you want to watch.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > Is this the beginning of a world optimized for well-being instead of engagement? No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide It's amazing to me how easily people "forget" the actual UN-recognized religious holocaust that is happening right now, while praising its architects.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Well-being can't be measured, so it can't be optimized for.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
Phithagoras 4y ago
I like the concept. What happens if a company claims to have removed their recommendations yet has not? Would this even be enough to cause a scandal with real consequences? In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit. A weak law, passed too early and without widespread cultural significance would serve only to give a tighter, more insidious grip on a typical used's view of media, music, and reality in general.
- lin83 4y ago
  > In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit. The vast majority of people have no thought out opinion on the matter. They have no idea how much data is gathered about them, how it's sold and how it's used. Ignorance is not the same as affirmation.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The vast majority of people are well aware that anything they put on a digital device gets vacuumed up. Whether make witty quips about corperate overlords or their FBI agent is immaterial. I know HN has a lot of people who subscribe to beliefs in the same ballpark as "people are stupid and need to be helped" but rest assured, people are well aware that they're getting bent over when it comes to their data.
  - lazyier 4y ago
    In sincerely doubt that goal of this legislation is to "curb information gathering". This is kinda the entire point of their social credit system.
    - HarryHirsch 4y ago
      As if the West didn't have social credit system. Not too long ago, there was a discussion here about algorithmic tenant scoring, and there were users here defending the practice. In China there's at least some legislation to curb abuses. In the US, not so much.
simne 4y ago
This is so typical soviet/communists lie, I can't believe, exists educated Western people who don't understand, how huge this lie. - Term "wellness" is so highly depend on context, that it will mean anything, what decide judge. - Depend on point of look, for wellness could decide to give somebody food/water or to kill him, so he will not agonize. On what I must agree, this classic totalitarian legislation, will have extremely long tail of consequences. For example, judge could decide, that for abstract wellness, bank algorithm should not account fees on officials accounts (including their relatives), or they could decide, that for officials accounts, 2*2=5.
- simne 4y ago
  So I think, with this new legislation, China become real life implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels
- helen___keller 4y ago
  An overly cynical take. Like any country, China has a balance of power in internal politics. If we’re talking about those at the top (e.g. Xi), there’s really no need for this law to interpret 2+2=5; he’s the dictator and already can take whatever he wants. For lower officials, maybe they want 2+2=5, but those above them want to keep them in check to make themselves look good, except in so far as the lower officials have something to offer in return. But even if that lower official is paying the upper official to look the other way, if the lower official pisses off too many people higher up the chain then there’s no way to avoid the consequences. This is the game and balance of power as it exists today, and that doesn’t change with some social media law. The main change here is giving CCP more tools to shape public discourse. you’re correct that “wellness” can mean anything. If some app has too many posts criticizing Shanghai lockdown, tell the app it’s not promoting wellness, fix it with algorithms or go to jail. In other words, a softer version of great firewall censorship: you are “allowed” to post on a topic, but maybe nobody will see your post because it’s not promoting wellness
  - simne 4y ago
    > This is the game and balance of power as it exists today Your model missing important thing - logistics. - Logistics is so much huge factor, that in reality, large totalitarian country usually become Neo-feudalism, meaning, typical local official is at so large distance from totalitarian center, that he could do with their subordinates near anything, effectively become local prince. - Lower effective in small countries (Singapore), in large lower become local. And China is LARGE country, even with modern technologies, it is divided to provinces, which have significantly different behaviors. So they will have in one province 2+2=5, in other could be 2+2=6, and in third 2+2=7, etc. Adding rules accepting wide specter of interpretations, make things more totalitarian. This is in fact payment of central government to local officials. I only can't at the moment figure out, for what they pay locals, but there not much variants - most probably they prepare to invade Taiwan. BTW, in democracy countries also provinces different, but they not trying to hide this information, so we know these sadly facts. And Chinese totalitarian power constantly spend huge resources to hide truth, and you believe for their lie.
jpswade 4y ago
This is already an option under GRPR.
- TrailMixRaisin 4y ago
  Some elements of the law are part of the GDPR, but I would say that the Chinese law has an much more broad and ambitious scope. GDPR regulates that a human is not subject to an automatic decision that has a (negative) legal effect on him or her. The Chinese law additionally prohibits elements that built addiction, prevent bots from registering accounts, not generate synthetic false information, etc. I would assume that enforcing such a law is extremely hard. The cynical part of me assumes that the unclear regulations will be used to silence companies and individuals that do not match the governments ideology. But I still think that many countries would be well adviced to include something similar in their legislation.
boppo1 4y ago
This title is clearly some sort of propaganda. This from the country that flies drones around telling people to stay inside?
- GordonS 4y ago
  The US has done some truly terrible things too - but that doesn't mean everything they do is evil, nor does it mean every American is evil. Consider that for the past 5-10 years we in the west have been bombarded with anti-Chinese news stories, and "red danger" is reaching new, dizzying heights; propaganda works both ways.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    I was not claiming the contrary.
manor 4y ago
“Algorithmic recommendation service providers shall actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.”... Are free and fair elections "good"? Is one party rule the best guarantee for "positive energy"? This is so ridiculous coming from a non-democracy...
civilized 4y ago
China doesn't have rule of law. This is like termites proposing a new structure for wooden home construction.
- trasz 4y ago
  - ebruchez 4y ago
    > USA doesn’t have rule of law Total nonsense. The US doesn't have perfect rule of law but then nothing is ever perfect. Failures like the ones you are presenting have been widely reported, are largely controversial, and nobody who has criticized those arguably undesirable outcomes has been silenced or disappeared by the US government. I would a thousand times rather be indicted in the US or most European countries than in China or in Russia where the arbitrary and corruption of the judicial system reign.
    - trasz 4y ago
      >Total nonsense. The US doesn't have perfect rule of law but then nothing is ever perfect. So how is it different from China again? As for being indicted - please check out statistics of how many people in American prisons were sentenced without proving them guilty. The fundamental difference between legal systems in US and China is that the American system is faulty by design, ie its flaws are not considered flaws. Same way politician's corruption is considered normal.
      - ebruchez 4y ago
        > how is it different from China again It's a matter of degree. Not everything is black or white. Things can be better or they can be worse. Since there is no way to just argue one's way out of it, I'll just point you to the ranking established by the World Justice Project [1] in this document [2]. Overall ranking (lower is better): - United States: ranking 27 - China: ranking 98 - Russian Federation: ranking 101 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project [2] https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-INDEX-21.pdf https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...
_0w8t 4y ago
I think comments here that this all about Chinese government wanting to silence political opponents via arbitrary application of the law miss the point. Preventing use of algorithms takes power from big internet companies to feed addictive content. In turn this is in line a general policy of CCP to curb the influence of big companies or prevent those to appear in the first place even if those companies follow all government guidelines. I think CCP realized that any too-big-to-fall or too influential entity threatened CCP as a big organization even under tight control still provides an alternative that may very quickly become problematic for the government. With smaller entities the option just to shut down them is very effective way to deal with them.
- onlyartists 4y ago
  It fits the current Western media narrative but misses the the point if you view every CPC action as security against threats to its control.[1] They genuinely care for people and are doing this for their people's best: it comes on the heels of similar laws targeting addictive online gaming and restricting students access to this around a year ago. It's not about a battle between big tech and government for control (a decidedly Western projection), it's more China being innovative about the real threat to people's well being that tracking, and optimized recommendation can do. We know the threat in the West, just our system cannot do anything about it, because of the "freedom" of liberal democracy's lobbying system's and free market principles. The central government is acting on this because they can. Like most everything CPC does, it is an experiment: e.g, Hainan FTP is the nation's "biggest testing ground for addressing institutional weak links" and "Hainan plays the role of a testing ground for China's opening-up and helps ensure economic security" [2]. If you want to consider second order affects of this flex/ability, here's my take: They have the mandate, the political will, and the real power to enact these experiments / innovative reforms and this is another. Their governing system is constantly evolving. That flexibility is why I think they will win, if you want to compare governing systems: they can simply afford to take more risks, and thereby iterate/zero-in on more correct solutions by exploring the state space of governance, more effectively than less flexibile/more brittle/more stymied-by-existing power-players, "Western liberal democracies". It's good for China, and sad for the West, but I think it's a teachable moment for the West: that I hope can encourage/inspire the West's own period of "reform and opening up" [1]: Tho understandable from a Western PoV given combative rhetoric of late--it does seem insecure, right? Tho that point is more a voice that wants to be in command of how it is narrated, rather than have Western propaganda (driven by the West's own insecurities about China) misrepresent it [2]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml
galacticaactual 4y ago
This article is exceptionally naive to the point of propaganda and it is both interesting and sad that other comments to that effect are downvoted. This is simple groundwork to ensure that CCP can dictate what people are allowed to engage with on the CCPs terms. “Positive” here is whatever the government says it is.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
So we're holding China, who's running a UN-recognized genocide against the Uyghur people, and who restricts travel and jobs on an algorithmic social credit score, up as doing something socially positive against algorithms, huh There is no war in Ba Sing Se; we have never been at war with Eastasia
Barrin92 4y ago
This is largely in line with changes in the regulatory landscape of China and particular the tech sector overall. Up until now China has let private business do whatever it wants with economic growth as pretty much the only goal but just like anywhere else it's created a big rift between social outcomes and market outcomes. Over the last few years the language has changed from growth in a quantitative sense to a qualitative sense. Equity is a big concern in China nowadays with high levels of inequality, even old Communist sentiments reemerging in particular online among poorer demographics, 'ethics', 'reasonable corporate behavior' are phrases that nowadays pop up often in laws and party publications as well. I think people should be cautiously optimistic about this because the fact that China is passing laws with real teeth that take welfare in a broad sense into account rather than just continuing with brute growth even if it hurts stock valuations short term is an indicator that governance is able to take a somewhat longer look.
HippoBaro 4y ago
This is great, and we should celebrate China for doing this. I would genuinely love to see this kind of legislative will in Western society. My main question is that it seems very hard to distinguish between a legitimate recommendation system and a system that is designed to capture your attention. For instance, I like being able to see related items on Amazon when evaluating a purchase. That recommendation empowers me as a consumer. China can afford to make the law vague because the regulator will never be challenged in its interpretation. That wouldn't work elsewhere, I think. That being said, not all is great. China grants rights to people over their data while making it clear that they don't own any of it. This legislation is part of a broader regulatory framework designed to give the state a true monopoly free of all limits. This should give us pause.

136 points by AlbertoRomGar 4y ago

..does anyone else find some small irony in this, given that China is also the country fixated on CCTVs and social scoring of its own citizens in a panopticon of its own design? I don't disagree with the premise of people > algorithm, just noting the almost strange disconnect between it and the underlying polity and its tendencies.

culi 4y ago
China has recently had a lot of really similar rulings. The issue is that filter of western media wouldn't let you hear about those as often as you hear about CCTVs. Did you know their equivalent of the supreme court recently ruled that people can't be filmed in shopping malls (and other public spaces) without their consent?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
analyst74 4y ago
Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media. If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions. CCTV protects people from street crime; credit score seems to provide tremendous value in establishing trust between strangers, let's build a better version; people > algorithms, let's regulate the latter.
- alphabetting 4y ago
  >If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens Why would anyone do that given treatment of Uyghurs?
  - bckr 4y ago
    It's a mental exercise similar to watching a movie."Willing suspension of disbelief", it's called. Why would you care whether Mr. Big Muscles is winning or not given that he's just pretending to be the hero of the universe? From the Chinese perspective, what their government is doing to the Uyghurs is justified because terrorist separatist muslims. And anyway, from the Chinese perspective, nothing really bad is happening to the Uyghurs anyway, they're just being reformed into good citizens.
    - snapcaster 4y ago
      If you're American I'm sure you can relate to the Chinese here. I almost never think about the millions of dead Iraqi people my tax money contributed to
      - alphabetting 4y ago
        The major difference is in America you can criticize what America did to Iraqis at the top of your lungs and work to get different leaders elected. Can't do the same in China without consequences.
        scarecrowbob 4y ago
        I can complain all I want and work for as much change as I'd like. Completely without any sort of consequences in the world.
        alphabetting 4y ago
        can't criticize the govt in effort to elect new leaders in China which was my point.
        scarecrowbob 4y ago
        I presume you understood mine.
- iqihs 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eximius 4y ago
  And "reeducating" non-Han minorities is also for good of its citizens? Those who disagree with the party? A benevolent authoritarian government could be very efficient and good, but we still reject authoritarianism because it is bad.
- tauwauwau 4y ago
  Path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don't think their are any good leaders.
- zeruch 4y ago
  "Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media." No, I'm seeing it through taking a series of factually established premises, and comparing them. Critical thinking (however anecdotally a position one launches from) isn't a byproduct of "Western Media". "If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions." Are they? "CCTV protects people from street crime" ...or just makes investing in ski masks popular? Your statement is so absent any context (who has access to the CCTV, what legal recourse is there for auditing the footage from a privacy or legal evidentiary perspective), are there controls to prevent abuse, etc. I said nothing of a credit score. I said a social score, which is a very different, and much more contentious issue: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-e...
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    > Critical thinking Most people consider themselves critical thinkers, but subconsciously apply a bias on the sources they read. For instance they would go to depth on and apply every single possible suspicion on news that are against their perception, or failing that, just simply labeling it as 'false news'. At the same time, news or information that conforms to their bias are accepted as truth usually without any questions asked. It's alarming because most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe - because you are already critical of those that are against it by default. That is what true critical thinking is.
    - zeruch 4y ago
      Everyone applies bias at some level, period. That said, the threshold for lazy loading bias can be significantly different for people, and trying to become a Vulcan-Mentat combo might not be the most ideal goal. Actually applying some real rigor and not just resorting to convenient heuristics (e.g. "Western media", "MSM" , "leftist" or "rightist" or several other "ists" reflexively) usually is a good start. " most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe" Agreed.
- andreilys 4y ago
  If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, Please explain how the continued lockdown in Shanghai is “the Chinese government” doing good for its citizens vs. not wanting to lose face on an absurd zero covid policy?
esjeon 4y ago
I'm pretty sure CCP is trying its best to protect itself. It basically wants to be the single source of truth in the country, but algorithms interfere with this goal by providing "bubbles" to users. Once a person falls into a bubble, his view will start diverging from what CCP wants their people to see, causing instability inside the society. This is obviously a huge threat to their authority.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  This makes a ton of sense. Seems the next frontier for the CCP is to gain control of tech companies, most of which could be peppered with talent that has studied in the West
  - rakkhi 4y ago
    Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
- rakkhi 4y ago
  Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
  - zeruch 4y ago

Apocryphon 4y ago

To all of those skeptical of this law because it was written in China- what’s wrong with importing it to the U.S., the EU, or the U.K., adapting it to local characteristics, and then using it? Even if you might question the spirit of it in the PRC, what’s wrong with the letter of it in a different country? Isn’t the idea still sound

mromanuk 4y ago
I'm with you, I'm reading lots of comments criticizing this because it's from China government. Are people rejecting merchandise because it was manufactured in China? They don't are about that. Why should we care if it's a good law? Don't shoot the messenger.

joemazerino 4y ago

China provides this law because they already track everything every citizen does. This is a virtue signal from a country gripped by a brutal and oppressive government.

nayuki 4y ago
Yes. You really can't take China's laws and proclamations at face value. Look at how many times they tried to "ban" Bitcoin or VPNs, yet they keep coming back. China does what China wants, and the written laws are a smokescreen.
user_7832 4y ago
I don't fully agree that that is the reasoning. Addictive algorithms or not, Facebook/TikTok et al can and does track you comfortably (as do most states including China). But if you observe some recent laws you'll see that the government sometimes does do things that are (what it thinks) is good for its citizens. For example there was a recent law limiting gaming hours for children. Agree or disagree with the implementation, a state can simultaneously be doing terrible things while also trying to do good things. Governments are not a monolithic unit.
- LordGronk 4y ago
  I think the issue he is pointing out is that China has plenty of laws that, as written, guarantee the exact opposite of what the state actually does. For instance, article 35 of the PRC's constitution guarantees "freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.", yet that is obviously not the case in practice.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > Agree or disagree with the implementation, a state can simultaneously be doing terrible things while also trying to do good things. Governments are not a monolithic unit. Ah! So when enough people disagree with the government then the solution is to change the government! You can change the government in China, right? Right?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

charcircuit 4y ago

There is too much content on big platforms to make unpersonalized recommendation systems viable. Even something simple like a feed showing you videos from people you follow is a recommendation system personalized to you based off the users that you personally follow. Without personalization you get stuff like trending videos with maybe new videos sprinkled in too help new videos catch traction. YouTube's trending page is pretty much universally hated by everyone I've talked to.

mc32 4y ago

I think we need to be careful in how this is read. It has some great public interest points, but also includes some language which more or less would prevent sentiment that was contrary to regime policies, etc. But again, lots of positives too. >"“Algorithmic recommendation service providers shall...:” Art 6: “… actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.” Art 8: “… not set up algorithm models that induce users to indulge in addiction, excessive consumption, etc. …” Art 13: “… not generate synthetic false news information or disseminate it. …” Art 14: “… not use algorithms to falsely register accounts, illegal transaction accounts, manipulate user accounts, or falsely like, comment, or forward …” Art 16: “… notify users in a conspicuous manner of their provision of algorithmic recommendation services, and publicize the basic principles, purposes, and main operating mechanisms …” Articles 18 and 19 are similar but emphasize the particularities of minors and the elderly — demographics that have very particular needs and requirements (e.g. minors shouldn’t have easy access to unsafe content and elders have specific medical necessities). Art 17: “… provide users with options that are not tailored to their personal characteristics, or provide users with a convenient option to turn off the algorithmic recommendation service. …”"

jpgvm 4y ago
Well it's China. In the context of their system I think most Chinese would consider it to be a good law. It takes power away from private companies and extends the Chinese governments power to "ensure stability". That latter half most Westerners would probably find unsavory but it's just how China operates.

user_named 4y ago

Well, at least empower the government over corporate algorithms.

duxup 4y ago

Does this stop their government from doing it? Are the courts independent enough to even utilize this law?

kwere 4y ago
no, a lot of human rights activist/lawyers that abided by the written laws (china constitution) were persecuted. [0] From the chinese affair office in lithuania : "The Constitution provides for a wide range of political rights to citizens. In addition to the right to vote and to be elected mentioned above, citizens also enjoy freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. There is no news censorship in China." [1] [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-human-rights-defenders-given-long-jail-terms-tortured-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-human-... [1] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm# https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm#

beloch 4y ago

I'd be concerned if the U.S. passed this law. Who defines what "good" or "positive energy"? Who defines what is fake news? Does providing users information that is "not tailored to their personal characteristics" mean that it's, instead, tailored to the state's preferences? The language of the law sounds nice and there are aspects that probably meet goals that are not necessarily harmful to people (e.g. Addicted people are less productive, so avoiding addiction is good for the state as well as the individual), but it definitely could be used by a state to control what people see online. That's political control of media. If you wouldn't be concerned if this passed under Biden, how about if it were passed under Trump? Remember what he called "fake news"? How much more should we be concerned about it being passed in China, where state control over media is absolute? e.g. Anything involving the Tienanmen square massacre is virtually guaranteed to be classified as "fake news", "not good", or "not conducive of positive energy" by this law. How do companies like facebook ensure they're compliant with the law then? Censorship. This isn't good news. This is absolutely dystopian.

sebow 4y ago
Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage. As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.
sudosysgen 4y ago

throwaway15908 4y ago

Next step, "for the wellbeing of its citizens", the chinese government will stop censoring too critical content for a healther relationship to issues to discuss. I hope this trend continues.

rdxm 4y ago

dontcare007 4y ago

Now if they would just respect human rights...

louloulou 4y ago

lol

tzm 4y ago

> "China is leading the way towards a better relationship with algorithms" Speechless. There is plenty of evidence to counter this point. China already tracks what every citizen does. The author comes off as a pundit for the CCP.

StopDarkPattern 4y ago
Except china rigs every single request? How does it even matter at that point. ROFL.
mromanuk 4y ago
Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  Way to ignore the parallels of data tracking and "algo" fairness. What do you suppose the said algo _uses_, hmm? Perhaps the data captured by the government?
  - mromanuk 4y ago
    Governments tends to hoard information, they just store everything they can for "future references". Later on the process they can use some types of algorithm to dig and cross information for a target or whatever, but is a different matter. Nobody is going to say "ok track me, but don't use an algorithm" that would be the lesser problem, obviously the tracking is the issue there. As I said before, is a different discussion.
- x-complexity 4y ago
  > Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter. They aren't separate, in fact in the case of regulations, the subjects are deeply intertwined with each other: The introduction of "allowed algorithms" is a clear sign that the government in question has a vested interest in controlling the information feeds of their population. Slippery slope be damned, it creates a path for the government to say: "Hey, we want you to use this algorithm instead & set it as the default: Nothing suspicious, just use it. ;)" Even if the algorithm in question is just "sort by newest", the fact that a body of control is exerting influence on which algorithms are allowed & what is the default algorithm to be used sets a precedence of control that results in more power being sent to the government: Don't like the algorithms being used? Have the government solve it!

ozfive 4y ago

This Medium post reads like propaganda/promotional material. Algorithms can also do good at burying propaganda. What you want/need or believe you want/need may also be dangerous to you. I am against predatory algorithms but this post makes me recoil with all of the promotion that comes with it. Not sure what to think anymore. China has a history of running propeganda/promotion campaigns including running them as ads at the beginning of YouTube videos to get the first word in as an attempt to control the narrative.

bllguo 4y ago
I am seriously concerned with the rampant paranoia and lack of critical thinking in these accusations. People genuinely think the Chinese government is sponsoring Medium posts for niche audiences and that they have any interest in HN commenters? It's simply beyond comprehension. Y'all latched onto what, < $1M? in Russian FB ad spend and let your imaginations run to the moon and back.
- kwere 4y ago
  the chinese government creates youtube channels wich engage in genocidial denial [0], i believe paying for a normal PR campaign is normal [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKSswCwEMg&ab_channel=JerryHuang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKSswCwEMg&ab_channel=Jerry...

dirtyid 4y ago

PRC's been fairly prescient around regulating/managing the internet/tech, folks here whine, but west increasingly adopting PRC censorship and filtering, and eventually we will see sense in regulating algos. Tech was already in crosshairs, PRC simply more able to execute. Just an aside, new focus on algo mirrors PRC developing concepts around warfare, from informatization and now intelligization. Former about info, latter about algos. I hope those terms get more use.

lonk11 4y ago

"Art 6: “… actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.”" It depends on who it is "positive" and "good" for. For the society, the government, or the user? I would like to see algorithms that focus on the user. For that you want to have algorithms that are understandable and controllable by the user. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with the algorithms employed for recommendations today. They use neural networks that are hard to understand not only to the users but to the developers of these systems. Look at the abuse prevention technique used by DALL-E 2 [1]: "Our content policy does not allow users to generate violent, adult, or political content, among other categories. We won’t generate images if our filters identify text prompts and image uploads that may violate our policies." I worry that the algorithm regulation will focus on forcing recommendation systems to use similar controls and then those who control the filters of what is "not good" will effectively control what is acceptable to learn and talk about. I'd like to propose an alternative - design the recommendation algorithm that gives control to the user to decide what is good for them. I'm building https://linklonk.com https://linklonk.com as an experiment in this area and the algorithm is detailed here: https://linklonk.com/item/3292763817660940288 https://linklonk.com/item/3292763817660940288 [1] - https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ https://openai.com/dall-e-2/

d0mine 4y ago
Look at how media is aligned (talking points are successfully disseminated, dissent opinions are suppressed). Algorithms just help automate it.

yalogin 4y ago

Will that ever happen in the US? I cannot imagine it. A ton of companies will be out of business. A lot of our services will be forced to move to a paid model. I would love it but I can see Facebook and google, among others, spending a ton of money to fight it and essentially not let it happen.

danamit 4y ago
China was so ahead of the curve when it comes to private companies collecting and mining data. Ant Group is a big example of that, which was stopped by the government (power struggle or not?). When it comes to US, Americans are blind that they are being tracked too, while it isn't clear if China's so called score systems affect the average citizen, credit scores in US aren't any better. Also the tech industry banning all kind of political dissidents, them losing their jobs, etc... even a potential employer Googling you doesn't sound right to me. If the West and East are having the same outcomes, but the overlords are different being corpos in the West and party officials in the East.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kwere 4y ago

"The Constitution provides for a wide range of political rights to citizens. In addition to the right to vote and to be elected mentioned above, citizens also enjoy freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. There is no news censorship in China." [1] (chinese affair office in lithuania) this is the CCP, pure comedy [1] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm# https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm#

AlbertoRomGar 4y ago

A month ago, China made effective a new regulation that will force companies like Alibaba, Tencent, or ByteDance to give users the option to turn off recommendations, among other measures targeting algorithms to protect minors and the elderly, ensure fair pricing, prohibit fake news generation, or reduce addiction. Is this the beginning of a world optimized for well-being instead of engagement?

loceng 4y ago
Does this include removing the layer below this layer of the filtering/censoring of what content can reach the masses to begin with? Is it a double standard and/or hypocritical and/or virtue signalling otherwise? "These individual companies aren't capable of doing this for the betterment of society but we are"?
Proven 4y ago
charcircuit 4y ago
TikTok would suck so much if they blocked you from your Follows recommendation feed and For You recommendation feed. The platform doesn't have a nonpersonalized feed so you will have to search for content you want to watch.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> Is this the beginning of a world optimized for well-being instead of engagement? No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide It's amazing to me how easily people "forget" the actual UN-recognized religious holocaust that is happening right now, while praising its architects.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Well-being can't be measured, so it can't be optimized for.
- emodendroket 4y ago

Phithagoras 4y ago

I like the concept. What happens if a company claims to have removed their recommendations yet has not? Would this even be enough to cause a scandal with real consequences? In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit. A weak law, passed too early and without widespread cultural significance would serve only to give a tighter, more insidious grip on a typical used's view of media, music, and reality in general.

lin83 4y ago
> In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit. The vast majority of people have no thought out opinion on the matter. They have no idea how much data is gathered about them, how it's sold and how it's used. Ignorance is not the same as affirmation.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The vast majority of people are well aware that anything they put on a digital device gets vacuumed up. Whether make witty quips about corperate overlords or their FBI agent is immaterial. I know HN has a lot of people who subscribe to beliefs in the same ballpark as "people are stupid and need to be helped" but rest assured, people are well aware that they're getting bent over when it comes to their data.
- lazyier 4y ago
  In sincerely doubt that goal of this legislation is to "curb information gathering". This is kinda the entire point of their social credit system.
  - HarryHirsch 4y ago
    As if the West didn't have social credit system. Not too long ago, there was a discussion here about algorithmic tenant scoring, and there were users here defending the practice. In China there's at least some legislation to curb abuses. In the US, not so much.

simne 4y ago

This is so typical soviet/communists lie, I can't believe, exists educated Western people who don't understand, how huge this lie. - Term "wellness" is so highly depend on context, that it will mean anything, what decide judge. - Depend on point of look, for wellness could decide to give somebody food/water or to kill him, so he will not agonize. On what I must agree, this classic totalitarian legislation, will have extremely long tail of consequences. For example, judge could decide, that for abstract wellness, bank algorithm should not account fees on officials accounts (including their relatives), or they could decide, that for officials accounts, 2*2=5.

simne 4y ago
So I think, with this new legislation, China become real life implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels
helen___keller 4y ago
An overly cynical take. Like any country, China has a balance of power in internal politics. If we’re talking about those at the top (e.g. Xi), there’s really no need for this law to interpret 2+2=5; he’s the dictator and already can take whatever he wants. For lower officials, maybe they want 2+2=5, but those above them want to keep them in check to make themselves look good, except in so far as the lower officials have something to offer in return. But even if that lower official is paying the upper official to look the other way, if the lower official pisses off too many people higher up the chain then there’s no way to avoid the consequences. This is the game and balance of power as it exists today, and that doesn’t change with some social media law. The main change here is giving CCP more tools to shape public discourse. you’re correct that “wellness” can mean anything. If some app has too many posts criticizing Shanghai lockdown, tell the app it’s not promoting wellness, fix it with algorithms or go to jail. In other words, a softer version of great firewall censorship: you are “allowed” to post on a topic, but maybe nobody will see your post because it’s not promoting wellness
- simne 4y ago
  > This is the game and balance of power as it exists today Your model missing important thing - logistics. - Logistics is so much huge factor, that in reality, large totalitarian country usually become Neo-feudalism, meaning, typical local official is at so large distance from totalitarian center, that he could do with their subordinates near anything, effectively become local prince. - Lower effective in small countries (Singapore), in large lower become local. And China is LARGE country, even with modern technologies, it is divided to provinces, which have significantly different behaviors. So they will have in one province 2+2=5, in other could be 2+2=6, and in third 2+2=7, etc. Adding rules accepting wide specter of interpretations, make things more totalitarian. This is in fact payment of central government to local officials. I only can't at the moment figure out, for what they pay locals, but there not much variants - most probably they prepare to invade Taiwan. BTW, in democracy countries also provinces different, but they not trying to hide this information, so we know these sadly facts. And Chinese totalitarian power constantly spend huge resources to hide truth, and you believe for their lie.

jpswade 4y ago

This is already an option under GRPR.

TrailMixRaisin 4y ago
Some elements of the law are part of the GDPR, but I would say that the Chinese law has an much more broad and ambitious scope. GDPR regulates that a human is not subject to an automatic decision that has a (negative) legal effect on him or her. The Chinese law additionally prohibits elements that built addiction, prevent bots from registering accounts, not generate synthetic false information, etc. I would assume that enforcing such a law is extremely hard. The cynical part of me assumes that the unclear regulations will be used to silence companies and individuals that do not match the governments ideology. But I still think that many countries would be well adviced to include something similar in their legislation.

boppo1 4y ago

This title is clearly some sort of propaganda. This from the country that flies drones around telling people to stay inside?

GordonS 4y ago
The US has done some truly terrible things too - but that doesn't mean everything they do is evil, nor does it mean every American is evil. Consider that for the past 5-10 years we in the west have been bombarded with anti-Chinese news stories, and "red danger" is reaching new, dizzying heights; propaganda works both ways.
- boppo1 4y ago
  I was not claiming the contrary.

manor 4y ago

“Algorithmic recommendation service providers shall actively disseminate positive energy, and promote the application of algorithms to be good.”... Are free and fair elections "good"? Is one party rule the best guarantee for "positive energy"? This is so ridiculous coming from a non-democracy...

civilized 4y ago

China doesn't have rule of law. This is like termites proposing a new structure for wooden home construction.

trasz 4y ago
- ebruchez 4y ago
  > USA doesn’t have rule of law Total nonsense. The US doesn't have perfect rule of law but then nothing is ever perfect. Failures like the ones you are presenting have been widely reported, are largely controversial, and nobody who has criticized those arguably undesirable outcomes has been silenced or disappeared by the US government. I would a thousand times rather be indicted in the US or most European countries than in China or in Russia where the arbitrary and corruption of the judicial system reign.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >Total nonsense. The US doesn't have perfect rule of law but then nothing is ever perfect. So how is it different from China again? As for being indicted - please check out statistics of how many people in American prisons were sentenced without proving them guilty. The fundamental difference between legal systems in US and China is that the American system is faulty by design, ie its flaws are not considered flaws. Same way politician's corruption is considered normal.
    - ebruchez 4y ago
      > how is it different from China again It's a matter of degree. Not everything is black or white. Things can be better or they can be worse. Since there is no way to just argue one's way out of it, I'll just point you to the ranking established by the World Justice Project [1] in this document [2]. Overall ranking (lower is better): - United States: ranking 27 - China: ranking 98 - Russian Federation: ranking 101 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project [2] https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-INDEX-21.pdf https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...

_0w8t 4y ago

I think comments here that this all about Chinese government wanting to silence political opponents via arbitrary application of the law miss the point. Preventing use of algorithms takes power from big internet companies to feed addictive content. In turn this is in line a general policy of CCP to curb the influence of big companies or prevent those to appear in the first place even if those companies follow all government guidelines. I think CCP realized that any too-big-to-fall or too influential entity threatened CCP as a big organization even under tight control still provides an alternative that may very quickly become problematic for the government. With smaller entities the option just to shut down them is very effective way to deal with them.

onlyartists 4y ago
It fits the current Western media narrative but misses the the point if you view every CPC action as security against threats to its control.[1] They genuinely care for people and are doing this for their people's best: it comes on the heels of similar laws targeting addictive online gaming and restricting students access to this around a year ago. It's not about a battle between big tech and government for control (a decidedly Western projection), it's more China being innovative about the real threat to people's well being that tracking, and optimized recommendation can do. We know the threat in the West, just our system cannot do anything about it, because of the "freedom" of liberal democracy's lobbying system's and free market principles. The central government is acting on this because they can. Like most everything CPC does, it is an experiment: e.g, Hainan FTP is the nation's "biggest testing ground for addressing institutional weak links" and "Hainan plays the role of a testing ground for China's opening-up and helps ensure economic security" [2]. If you want to consider second order affects of this flex/ability, here's my take: They have the mandate, the political will, and the real power to enact these experiments / innovative reforms and this is another. Their governing system is constantly evolving. That flexibility is why I think they will win, if you want to compare governing systems: they can simply afford to take more risks, and thereby iterate/zero-in on more correct solutions by exploring the state space of governance, more effectively than less flexibile/more brittle/more stymied-by-existing power-players, "Western liberal democracies". It's good for China, and sad for the West, but I think it's a teachable moment for the West: that I hope can encourage/inspire the West's own period of "reform and opening up" [1]: Tho understandable from a Western PoV given combative rhetoric of late--it does seem insecure, right? Tho that point is more a voice that wants to be in command of how it is narrated, rather than have Western propaganda (driven by the West's own insecurities about China) misrepresent it [2]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml

galacticaactual 4y ago

This article is exceptionally naive to the point of propaganda and it is both interesting and sad that other comments to that effect are downvoted. This is simple groundwork to ensure that CCP can dictate what people are allowed to engage with on the CCPs terms. “Positive” here is whatever the government says it is.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

So we're holding China, who's running a UN-recognized genocide against the Uyghur people, and who restricts travel and jobs on an algorithmic social credit score, up as doing something socially positive against algorithms, huh There is no war in Ba Sing Se; we have never been at war with Eastasia

Barrin92 4y ago

This is largely in line with changes in the regulatory landscape of China and particular the tech sector overall. Up until now China has let private business do whatever it wants with economic growth as pretty much the only goal but just like anywhere else it's created a big rift between social outcomes and market outcomes. Over the last few years the language has changed from growth in a quantitative sense to a qualitative sense. Equity is a big concern in China nowadays with high levels of inequality, even old Communist sentiments reemerging in particular online among poorer demographics, 'ethics', 'reasonable corporate behavior' are phrases that nowadays pop up often in laws and party publications as well. I think people should be cautiously optimistic about this because the fact that China is passing laws with real teeth that take welfare in a broad sense into account rather than just continuing with brute growth even if it hurts stock valuations short term is an indicator that governance is able to take a somewhat longer look.

HippoBaro 4y ago

This is great, and we should celebrate China for doing this. I would genuinely love to see this kind of legislative will in Western society. My main question is that it seems very hard to distinguish between a legitimate recommendation system and a system that is designed to capture your attention. For instance, I like being able to see related items on Amazon when evaluating a purchase. That recommendation empowers me as a consumer. China can afford to make the law vague because the regulator will never be challenged in its interpretation. That wouldn't work elsewhere, I think. That being said, not all is great. China grants rights to people over their data while making it clear that they don't own any of it. This legislation is part of a broader regulatory framework designed to give the state a true monopoly free of all limits. This should give us pause.