Re: How would "algorithmic choice" laws/regulations impact ActivityPub?

Hey, Bob. This seems to me to be primarily an ActivityPub API issue, so 
I'll address that directly.

With the ActivityPub API, we have essentially one inbox feed (but see 
cardinality of properties 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub/Primer/Cardinality_of_properties>). 
It's required to be in reverse chronological order by the AP spec.

I /think/ it's reasonable for ActivityPub API /clients/ to do sorting 
and filtering of that inbox feed. (Some siloed social networking 
platforms explicitly disallow this in their developer terms of use, for 
various reasons, but I don't know of one of those platforms that 
implements the ActivityPub API.) So, the client fetches the activities 
in reverse chronological order from the server, and then re-orders or 
filters them according to the user-defined algorithm.

Performance-wise, this is not a great solution. It would probably 
require a lot of pre-fetching happening in the background.

I think it would be out of scope to define how those clients would 
present the different sorting/filtering options to a user.

We don't have an easy way for an ActivityPub API /server/ to provide 
multiple inbox-like feeds with different algorithms. We have the 
/streams/ property, but it's really loosely defined, and it's not just 
restricted to Collection objects that represent something like an inbox 
or home timeline.

I see a few ways to implement multiple server-side "home feed" collections:

  * Use the `inbox` property with multiple values. This would probably
    break a lot of Fediverse software, which expects this property to be
    a single value, and usually a single URL.
  * Define a way to add multiple inboxes to the `streams` property, and
    maybe have a way to signify that they are essentially the inbox
    sorted or filtered in some way.
  * Define a new ActivityPub extension property to provide a list of
    available inboxes, like, I dunno, `availableInboxes`.

I think we have

On 2025-01-17 10:52 p.m., Bob Wyman wrote:
> Yesterday, Missouri's Attorney General announced plans to issue 
> regulations 
> <https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-bailey-promulgates-regulation-securing-algorithmic-freedom-for-social-media-users/> 
> that would require social media platforms to “offer algorithmic 
> choice” to users. Clearly, it will take some time for this plan to be 
> published, studied, challenged in court, etc. It is also quite 
> possible that the regulations will be targeted to only the largest 
> services (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Nonetheless, I think we 
> should anticipate that the coming to power of Trump and MAGA 
> Republicans is likely to spawn many such proposals in the coming 
> years. Given this, I think it would be useful to at least consider 
> what impact such regulations would have on Social Media systems that 
> rely on ActivityPub and ActivityStreams.
>
> My guess is that the position of the "ActivityPub" community would be 
> that, in a federated system composed of a multiplicity of independent 
> interoperating servers -- each having a potentially different 
> moderation approach, it is not necessary for each individual server to 
> offer algorithmic choice. Users are free to seek out and use a server 
> whose default "algorithm" addresses their needs. However, this 
> position might not be accepted as sufficient if the opinion is that 
> the individual server, not the federated system as a whole, is 
> considered to be the regulated "platform." The obvious question then 
> becomes, what would need to be done to  enable a federated service, 
> even if very small on its own, to provide compliant algorithmic choice?
>
> Some will undoubtedly argue that the BlueSky support for a variety of 
> "labeling" services, when combined with user-selected client 
> algorithms capable of filtering, etc. based on labels, might be 
> sufficient to provide the necessary algorithmic choice. If such an 
> approach is sufficient, then one must ask if supporting it would 
> require modification to the ActivityPub protocols and schemas? (i.e. 
> Would we need to add a "content label" item that allows the annotation 
> or labeling of posts, replies, collections, etc.?)  Would a labeling 
> service be able to rely on the existing server-to-server protocol? Or, 
> would something tailored more to the specific requirements of labeling 
> be necessary? Of course, it would be useful to ask if there is a less 
> cumbersome or otherwise superior method for providing algorithmic 
> choice. What do you think?
>
> While the text of the plan isn't yet available, the AG's press release 
> does provide a sketch of what will eventually be published. See the 
> list below or read the full release 
> <https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-bailey-promulgates-regulation-securing-algorithmic-freedom-for-social-media-users/>:
>
>  1. "Users are provided with a choice screen upon account activation
>     and at least every 6 months thereafter that gives them the
>     opportunity to choose among competing content moderators;
>  2. No algorithm selection is chosen by default;
>  3. The choice screen does not favor the social media platform’s
>     content moderator over those of third parties;
>  4. When a user chooses a content moderator other than that provided
>     by the social media platform, the social media platform permits
>     that content moderator interoperable access to data on the
>     platform in order to moderate what content is viewed by the user; and
>  5. Except as expressly authorized below, the social media company
>     does not moderate, censor, or suppress content on the social media
>     platform such that a user is unable to view that content if their
>     chosen content moderator would otherwise permit viewing that content."
>
> bob wyman
>