Algorithm control is not a threat to free speech

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

The debate over the government’s proposed social media regulations is being wrongly framed as a battle over free speech (“War on algorithms revives free speech feud”, September 9). It is not. It is a battle over freedom of reach. Free speech guarantees the right to express an opinion. It does not guarantee an algorithmic megaphone engineered by tech companies to force that opinion into millions of feeds for profit. By offering users a feed made up exclusively of accounts they choose to follow, the government isn’t censoring content or dictating what Australians can say. It is simply restoring individual agency over what lands in our faces. There is a vast difference between suppressing a voice and turning down an algorithm’s volume control. Conflating the two only serves the Silicon Valley business model, which relies on outrage to keep us scrolling. Richard Davies, Paddington

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese asserts that allowing social media users the option of either a default feed that is dictated by the algorithm or, alternatively, one composed of friends and creators that they wish to follow will be “putting choice back into the hands of Australians online”. However, free choice requires that we have the capacity to make and act on an informed judgment, questionable in areas of addictive behaviours, as evidenced by the mixed success from education and legislation in reducing the personal and societal harm resulting from the addictive habits of gambling, smoking and alcohol consumption. Given the well-documented negative consequences of algorithmic induced social media addiction, in line with many analysts, the default feed should be from accounts a user chooses to follow, with the availability of choosing a feed provided by algorithms if so desired, with appropriate warnings having to be read first. In unknown territory, go for safety first. Paul Casey, Callala Bay

The algorithms of our social media feeds have been entrenched and self-perpetuating for so long, we no longer know what the content of our feeds will be without it. I am curious to find out. Bring on the opt-out! Rhyan Andrews, Faulconbridge

I’m not sure the free speech advocates understand, at a sufficient level of depth and breadth, what they want. Is it a no rules, Wild West, anarchic, zero consequences approach that they seek? There’s no shortage of evidence that social media (and the internet more broadly) can be a divisive, harmful, dishonest and dangerous place. Nation states, political parties, religious groups and numerous others all use the internet for good and bad/mischievous outcomes. I can’t help but wonder if a lot of the “controversy” around this issue is more about demonetising platforms/content creators rather than about the impacts on “free speech”. I’m trying to understand why anyone wouldn’t want the ability to control what they (or their children) are exposed to? If we want to live in a society that treats us all (generally) well and fairly, we need to accept that there are trade-offs to that. If we are going to make this part of the seemingly endless culture wars battle for ideas I’d offer this famous quote by Spock in Star Trek II: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” It’d be a better place all round if our politicians, corporate types and the various social media content providers/platforms consistently acted this way. Arguably because a lot of them have demonstrably been unable to act in good faith when online, to society’s standards, legislation is our only option. Bernard Stever, Richmond

The right always claims to value the power of the individual, yet is now objecting to the prospect of us each having the ability to manage our social media algorithms through Labor’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Laws. Rather than government control, these laws give us freedom of choice, something the right claims to cherish. These proposed laws are a very positive move by the Labor government. I have a No Junk Mail sign on my letterbox. My choice is to have the equivalent sign on my social media feed. Judy Hungerford, Narraweena

Free speech does not mean technology companies are entitled to design systems that expose children to foreseeable harm without accepting responsibility. Nor does it mean a child’s classmates have an unrestricted right to pursue that child into their home, bedroom, every hour of the day. The proposed digital duty of care is aimed at the conduct of platforms, not at preventing Australians from expressing political opinions. It asks enormously powerful companies to anticipate foreseeable risks, build safer products and act when their systems enable serious harm. Calling that an attack on free speech is particularly deplorable because it converts the protection of children into another weapon in the populist culture war. It elevates a slogan above the experience of children who can no longer escape bullying when the school bell rings. Lynne Strong, Jamberoo

Knowing how bot farms and AI slop have invaded my feed, with posts ranging from silly political nonsense to calls for the removal of elected representatives, I think it’s fair to say that, when opponents of the new bill say “free speech”, they mean the right for their agents and employees to lie with impunity. Colin Stokes, Camperdown

Until we get the digital duty of care legislation, Albanese’s current focus on where social media feeds come from is a distraction. Whether the feed comes from accounts already followed or from algorithms, poison remains poison. Posts of misogynistic content, posts advocating harm to others or self and posts that bully or distress hurt the user and create a world dangerous for others. Making the big tech companies accountable cannot happen soon enough.Mark Porter, New Lambton

Bring on the statesmen

Ross Gittins’ clarity of thought is refreshing (“It’s the pollies’ fault we’re so glum”, September 9), our pollies are largely uninspired and uninspiring, their vision myopic and self-serving. Leadership is rare and unfamiliar. Yet, I don’t believe we are as glum as the surveys would have us believe. The past seems like a better place because we focus on the good stuff, the positive memories. Human nature is positive. Algorithms and our own lack of inquisitiveness are as much to blame as the pollies. If we get a chance to participate in a survey, we unload. We are better than this. We live in one of the best countries in the world. We need to think critically because each of us can make a difference. Geoff Nilon, Mascot

Let’s face it, fundamentally, most leaders are mere politicians. Few are statesmen – the difference being, to borrow a quote, “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.” Edward Loong, Milsons Point

Our life when our family was young was lackadaisical. I loved every second of it. Not much money but carefully looking into rock pools for living things was wonderful. Same as quietly strolling along bush tracks. Banana sandwiches were yummy. Now, that lovely feeling has disappeared as we have politicians who seem to only desire being on the gravy train of the good life for themselves and often clueless about solutions and actions. Scientists tells us we are failing to limit climate change as the world is warming. Our lives, the environment and all living creatures will be severely changed. Ross, I am no longer lackadaisical, I am mad at politicians’ lack of action. Bea Hodgson, Gerringong

Poor school results no surprise

I have been retired as a primary school teacher and principal for more than 20 years now (″⁣Test scores plummet″⁣, September 9). However, as a teacher, I was extremely disappointed when the NSW Education Department stopped funding the School Magazine near the end of my career. It was graded from year 3 to year 6 with a host of different types of prose, from poetry to plays to serial stories, to reports on interesting people or projects. Every child had one for free and with teacher direction, discussion and group reading, a host of reading skills were shared, discussed and even plays acted out. Reading skills developed almost naturally in groups or with emphasis by the teacher. Might I also say that reading by phonics (although included) only gets you so far as reading for understanding is concerned and, of course, is just as important. For example, I will leave you with understanding the difference between these two sentences that I used to get children to explain to me: ″⁣Fruit flies like a banana″⁣ and ″⁣Time flies like an arrow.″⁣ Ken Pares, Forster

Comparisons of student results across schools, and indeed across countries, are always fraught with complexities. Recent comparisons with the UK and other better-performing countries test results are no less complicated. I taught on two year-long separate exchanges in Oxford and Cornwall (and previously Minnesota) and these results are not surprising. The UK has actively looked for solutions to raise student results with local culture, conditions and funding in mind over decades. Some have apparently worked. Australia, by contrast, has often adopted quick-fix alternatives with an eye to following other countries with different cultures and educational structures. In the UK, funding for early monitoring and individual tutoring was essential, home-room teacher mentoring across all subjects and individual goal setting with students and their parents at the beginning of each term showed a way forward. Schools were regularly assessed for lesson planning and teachers shared responsibilities for lesson observations and regular teacher feedback. Another essential was to encourage all children to attend school every day. By all means, look to overseas for ideas to better educate our children but looking inward for Australian needs are essential to overcome these poor international results. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer

Maths teachers like myself who for years warned against the policy of “inquiry-based learning” will not be surprised at the poor maths performance figures of Australian 15-year-olds. It never made any sense to teach maths in any way but explicitly, but to express this opinion was to be branded a “dinosaur” by educational “experts” and administrators. It’s also no surprise that Australian classrooms are “among the most disruptive in the world” given the associated decline in discipline, exacerbated by the increased influence of parents in school affairs where the teacher’s word is forever questioned in favour of the student. Technology itself is not to blame for this decline, but its management is, with some schools completely replacing pen and paper with a device. At least now the mistake has been realised and steps taken to return to an explicit system which should never have been replaced. Max Redmayne, Drummoyne

Ridiculous results

Well said, Jenna Price (“Teachers can’t fix parental failure”, September 9). When will those entitled parents who feel they can dump their problems on teachers take responsibility for their own children? Teachers have a huge responsibility just trying to teach kids these days and on top of that are required to complete prodigious amounts of reports (which I’ll bet are mostly never read again) and work ridiculous hours to achieve all of this bureaucratic nonsense for shiny bums at head office. It’s no wonder that we have difficulty getting teachers to stay in the job and that standards required to gain a university place to study teaching are so low. Wake up, parents, and wake up, NSW Education Department, before our current poor student results get even worse. Ian Ferrier, Long Jetty

No one could disagree with Jenna Price that bringing up kids is a parent’s job. It is, however, a job people launch into without either experience or qualifications, and in many cases support. Good or bad, in my day we relied on Dr Spock. Any day, it’s a tough call. Vicky Marquis, North Sydney

Spot on, Jenna Price. Until parents become advocates for teachers rather than adversaries, classroom behaviour will continue to deteriorate. Statistics show that student behaviour in Australian schools is among the worst in the world and, together with falling comparative student results and lack of support for a dominant, robust public education system, demonstrate that we have got it wrong. Losing up to a third of quality teaching time because of disruptive student behaviour is unacceptable. Parents, please show respect for teachers and positive outcomes will follow. Ian Roberts, St Ives

Woollahra plan is flawed

I am not a resident of Woollahra, so my comments are not in self-interest (“Plans unveiled for towers to house 10,000”, September 9). The draft proposal is simply illogical, as is the premier’s rationale. The premier concedes that future developments will not be affordable, indeed the limited 3 per cent affordable housing rate is well below the already inadequate objective that the government aspires to. The premier says western Sydney currently carries a disproportionate amount of housing development, yet developers state they cannot/will not develop highrise in western Sydney because they can’t obtain the “yield”. Essentially, the draft Woollahra plan would seem to be giving developers what they want, with little or no consideration to achieve socially beneficial outcomes. Paul Pearce, Bronte

Leash ’em, Rex

In my experience, one is far more likely to have an unpleasant experience with a person on a beach than with a dog (Letters, September 9). Perhaps it is the people who should be on a leash – especially children (and it would have the added benefit of reducing the incidence of drownings). Malcolm McCallum, Dulwich

To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email [email protected]. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.