Banning algorithmic recommendations would need to ban search engines.
Social media is ultimately just a website. Anything I can think of quickly gets down the road of banning the web browser and/or banning email.
The only solution is people have to have the freedom to use these stupid platforms or not. People have to have the freedom to be stupid on stupid platforms.
My take would be something like this:
Any public or public-ish website, or website with more than x user which presents algorithmically sorted or curated content must make readily available the source feed for their algorithms as well as any other information they use.
On any page where algorithmically sorted or curated content is presented, they must fully describe the algorithm used. Ditto anywhere you select an algorithm or navigate to an algorithmically curated or sorted page - it must be described fully in the button or selector, or adjacent to it. If that is impractical for space reasons, it should be described as best as possible with footnotes expanding on the explanation.
Furthermore, the explanation, source feed, and additional information should be complete and clear such that someone could reasonably recreate a page or sorting given the algorithm, source feed, and additional info. This would be the test used in court if someone alleged infringement.
My hope is that such a law would heavily bias sites towards simple, less manipulative algorithms.
TBH, I think that wouldn't solve the core problem.
If you forced, for example, TikTok to do this right now, they would presumably add a page to their app with their recommender algorithm. Then what? Meta or other competitors might be interested in copying aspects of it, but normal users would likely ignore it and continue being addicted to TikTok.
If you go to the root cause, the reason they want to maximise user-minutes is because it is in turn proportional to ad minutes.
Banning targeted ads will greatly reduce the benefit of ads (to the social media company) since they are rendered less effective. This will tip the scales of the cost-benefit tradeoff that the company makes. In this case, the cost of the ad is that it's annoying to the user. Every ad company chooses a tradeoff. If you made the benefit smaller, then they would have to reduce the cost too, which would lead to lower ad volume, which would reduce the incentive for engagement.
Any other way to reduce the effectiveness of ads also works. I'm sure the method I suggested(banning targeting) is not bulletproof, but they key thing that needs to be done is artificially reducing the effectiveness/relevance/quality of ads.
Surely if you ban targeting ads they'd have to catch up the revenue, and that would mean serving you more ads, worse ads and using stronger algorithms to ensure you stay longer. I don't think it makes any difference.
I think this is a reasonable take; a good start would be banning all forms of algorithmic "discovery" recommendations, and things like "for you" feeds.
Brazilian here. We still don't know if small things like comment sections and personal blogs will be under the new rules as our supreme court hasn't made any explicit exemption but their debates on the topic focused only on big techs. There is a chance an appeal will be filed to seek this kind of clarification.
As for buttons "I promisse I'm not Brazilian", that wouldn't really fly if the company in question has a lot of users in Brazil.
I suspect that we will see government enforcement only against big techs (especially Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube).
I genuinely doubt there will be many lawsuits targeting small websites because there isn't money to be made off them. So any litigation here will probably be restricted to personal revenge cases or something like it.
I really wish this had been settled in Congress with more cleat rules and language instead of decided by the courts.
assuming that the typo didn't lead to an invalid/unregistered key, you will see the recipient's bank, full name and masked CPF number in the confirmation screen.
I really dislike the lack of a more anonymous way to transfer money but given how prevalent scams are here I feel like there was no better option.
Also, before PIX bank transfers required a person's full name, full CPF number, full account and branch numbers so arguably PIX is helping to improve privacy a little bit.
However the big issue is when people register their phone numbers as PIX keys because it means strangers can easily get full names from phone numbers.
One explanation I've heard is that companies don't extract the same value from women as they do from men because society's sexism causes managers and peers to assign "low value tasks" disproportionately to women even when they have the same job description as their male counterparts.
Why can't we just mandate people to send a copy of every publication to an UN Media Preservation Library and use something like redundant LTO tapes + Piql film to make sure stuff is never lost?
Yes it's expensive but if we divide those expense across 8 billion people out becomes affordable.
I agree that as a society we should absolutely not judge people as being any worse simply because there are naked or sexual pics or vids of them floating around.
In fact I would go further and just ban discrimination on sexuality and/or availability of sexual material of someone. This is specially important when it comes to employment and housing discrimination.
However, laws aren't magic bullets and even it such a law were to be 100% followed, the creation of realistic fake sexual material of someone is definitely a serious violation of privacy and intimacy and thus people who make such materials ought be punished as for the violation of such fundamental rights.
This is to say, punishment of fake nude creators should be irrespective of whether or not they caused emotional distress.
In short, I think most Brazilians trust technology more than they trust their fellow Brazilians.
We have a long history of lack of rule of law and of local authorities getting away with some pretty despicable shit. So, the less they can interfere with elections, the better off we are.
And pulling off a major fraud scheme with our voting machines is petty damn difficult as their software is loaded and sealed months before the election and all political parties can send representatives to observe the processes and to reqd the source code.
I do however wish that the source code were fully open for anyone to read. But I'm afraid of how much this transparency will be abused by disinformation campaigns.
Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube?
I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.