How can you tell what one is? Reddit in 2010? Facebook in 2005? IRC in 1999?

If the users chooses what they are shown and the order they are shown in, then it's fine. If the platform chooses, then it's not, because they will always choose what creates the most engagement.

Not necessarily. Just fix the algorithm. Showing all submissions by time should be ok, showing all submissions by number of upvotes should be ok if the user chooses that.

The platform can also add ghost upvotes and downvotes and censor upvotes and downvotes.

That could be penalized, ultimately by breaking up the company and selling it in parts.

Well, yeah, it could be. Is that your proposal?

I think I would be fine with a positive enumeration. Some ideas for serving content:

    - purely random
    - sponsored but without user tracking (like old school TV ads)
       - sponsored for user selected geographical area feed
       - sponsored for user current location geographical area feed
    - follow "friends" or influencers
    - purely timeline

    - discussion boards
      - timeline (IRC like)
      - threaded
      - user votes (not magic platform votes)

    - follow keywords

So Hacker News wouldn't be allowed?

I think it should be, maybe I'm missing some aspect, I just cooked up a simple list of rules on the spot, sheesh :-D

Edit: huh, I'm probably stupid, but can you explain more?

HN uses magical platform votes.

And it should be transparent about it. When Dan uses a magic lever, it should be visible.

Would Facebook be okay if all the Nazi propaganda posts were tagged "Facebook boosted this post"?

If they did boost it, why shouldn't they tell us?

Would that be all that's required to make it okay?

No, I don't think so.

Is heroin the same as beer? Who even knows.

That's the problem, recommendation algorithms on networks beyond a certain scale should be publicly auditable.

If they're not, I should be able to opt-out of them.

Exactly. Fix the addiction machine, not just who gets checked at the door.

How about taking some personal responsibility for your life?

This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults.

It's clear by now that the societal impact is significant. I can banish all the social networks from my life and they'll still be corrupting the political process, promoting divisive content, etc.

I assume you are also for heroin vending machines at every school corner if you watch a 30 second ad slot. You don't have to use them, you know.

No, but I'm not against selling alcohol and fast sports cars to adults, for example. I'm not very fond of a nanny state that prohibits almost everything to adults "for their sake" and because the government knows so much better.

It is somewhat more challenging for the vendor selling alcohol or sports cars to manipulate your thinking, so the analogy is strained.

[citation needed]

Your extreme example of a policy regarding distribution of heroin is far from perfect, but also far better than prohibition, which has visited upon the world more death, disease, crime, and cartel enrichment than perhaps any other policy in history.

But surely we can do better than either of these extremes.

> This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults.

Ban the boxes for kids

I was replying specifically to someone who insinuated that all social media (or, at least, all supposedly addictive social media) should be banned for everyone, including adults. To me, it's a matter of personal freedom that they shouldn't be banned for adults.

I think this is really the only serious alternative.