As EU law hopes to rein in Big Tech's algorithms, this reporter wants a 'third path'

Spark53:59Is there life beyond algorithms?

Imagine TikTok without its infamous 'For You' algorithm or Google search without its ranking system, what would the browsing experience be like on these platforms?

The European Union's Digital Services Act went into effect on Aug. 25. Among its sweeping set of regulations, it requires certain tech platforms, including search engines, e-commerce sites, social media platforms and even app stores to provide European users one version of their feeds that isn't determined by tracking their past behaviour.

For now, the rules apply to large online platforms with over 45 million users in the EU, but as of February 2024, the DSA will also kick in for smaller tech companies.

Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist and founder of U.S.-based technology news site The Markup, says this act is one step in rethinking how we curate online content — but she also sees other alternatives to tracking-based curation.

Angwin spoke with Spark host Nora Young about the problem with algorithmic curation being in the hands of a few tech companies, as well as what a future without algorithms on online platforms could look like.

Here is part of their conversation.

So it's early days for the EU's Digital Services Act, but can you explain, just in general terms, what the large tech platforms are required to do when it comes to the content that users see and how that changes what a European user sees when they go to TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and the like?

So the idea is if, for instance, some content of yours gets removed, you should get an explanation of why and have an opportunity to dispute it, which is not the case for U.S. users.

Also, there's going to be much more enforcement of the rules that the EU wants in terms of what kind of speech is allowed and not allowed, and so if the platforms leave up some kind of hate speech that is illegal in the EU, they will be sanctioned for it.

Then, there are going to be more kinds of choices. So Facebook will now have to offer you at least one algorithm that's not based on your behaviour. Meaning that it is actually usually what will end up looking like a chronological feed of just when people posted.

Instead of a feed based on tracking your past behaviour, like what you watched and what you engaged with, you just see a chronological feed or you have that option.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's body of documents that she released were really about the perils of optimizing for engagement, that when these platforms are trying to decide what to show you first, they are basing it on what will keep you on the platform longest. So they're looking at what you clicked on in the past, what other people found appealing, how long are you staying on a page when you click on it. 

And what we have found is these platforms are showing us more and more outrageous content, which is leading to this feeling that everyone has that it's like this unpleasant experience and we're feeling really polarized and the discourse feels really angry. And so as one way to try to address that, the EU has decided to at least provide one other option.

Now the one option that the companies find easiest for them to offer is this chronological feed. The problem is chronological feeds are actually really not that enjoyable. There's always that one friend you have who posts 30 things in a row. And so the problem is whenever they're active, you can't see anything else on your feed. 

And so there has to be another way, right? I have been writing and thinking a lot about this idea of maybe there's a third path where we create our algorithms in some way that's not engagement, which is this outrage machine and not chronology, which is just, "volume wins."

You've written about a number of problems with this kind of algorithmic feed on social media platforms. And one of your arguments is that the problem is the power that it gives to a few tech giants. Can you expand on that?

I used to go to an actual physical newsstand and there were magazines and newspapers on it. And you would pick which one you wanted. And it was pretty clear that some publications probably paid for slightly better placement in the newsstand, but ultimately, you were picking.

So if you think about these algorithmic feeds as essentially a newsstand, it's more than just news magazines, it's also your grandma and your friends. It's actually just sort of a collection of information from people that you want to hear from. 

If I go to the library I can get whatever book I want; they're not going to hide some from me just because they're not engaging.

And so we've given these companies this power to control what news we see, what friends we hear from. And so even if you assume they're the best actors in the world — and P.S., I feel like we have some evidence that they're not — this isn't the power you would want to give to a private company without some sort of process where you could control it. Where you could say, "No, I literally just want a button like give me more of my grandmother and less of this."