(There are some basic things like fraud and such that are already illegal.)
Most people don’t actually want to ban “harmful” speech except for the speech of their political enemies.
The form you use is part of expression.
Engagement maximizing is a buzzword that translates to content people are interested in viewing. Why would you want to regulate content to be uninteresting? I can't see that benefiting anyone.
Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?)
And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?
Let the user decide. The evil algorithms require the "algorithms" such as "all my subscriptions, completely, in chronological order" to be removed. If "all ragebait" or "maximize profits for facebook" are just other buttons, I have no objection, but I do not think they will be popular.
Not if you must ID before accessing information on the world wide web.
No. I don't want to be treated like a child.
It always beautiful how single-word choices like this can reveal the actual intent behind seemingly "reasonable" words.
(Forgive the link source - I can see in hindsight how that might not be perceived as the most objective source - but there are many other sources for those who care to look.)
The problem in these discussions is that radicalize is an overloaded term. It could mean convincing someone of your non-mainstream political view, or it could mean inspiring someone to commit an act of terror. The former seems perfectly fine to me and well within freedom of speech and association.
However, if my platform says on the outside that it's for 18+, identifies itself as such using machine-readable signals, and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service, it's your failure to parent if they access it, and you should shoulder most or all the liability for it.
The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? This exists currently to some extent, it can get much worse.
A government body may review a service and determine it is addictive and radicalizing. This is fine, and helpful. Even requiring the service to display a warning is OK. Then, parents who ignore the clear warning and repeatedly fail to control their children from accessing it should lose parental rights.
> ... and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service
What part of these services have been designed to be inherently addictive do you have a hard time understanding?
It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them.
> The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent?
So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.?
Do you seriously think looking at websites, no matter what kind of websites, is more damaging than separating a children from his or her god damn parents and throwing them into the pit of neglect and abuse called the foster care system?
Get serious. This is not a suggestion on how to protect kids. The kids have everything to lose and nothing to earn under your system.
It's angels and saviors like you who make the world a living hell.