Last Friday afternoon, Twitter posted the source code for its recommendation algorithm on GitHub. Twitter said its algorithm was “open source,” something I would normally be in favor of. Recommendation algorithms and open source code are the main focuses of my work as a researcher and advocate for corporate responsibility in the technology industry. my research has proven why and how companies like YouTube should be more transparent about the inner workings of their recommendation algorithms, and I’ve campaigned to push them to do so. Mozilla, the non-profit organization of which I am a senior member, famous open source the Netscape browser code and invited a worldwide developer community to contribute to it in 1998, and has continued to push for an open Internet ever since. So why am I not impressed or excited by Musk’s decision?
If anything, Twitter’s so-called “open source” is a clever red herring to distract from its recent moves. far from transparency. Just a few weeks ago, Twitter quietly announced that it was close free version of its API, a tool that researchers around the world have trusted for years to conduct research on harmful content, misinformation, public health, election monitoring, political behavior, and more. The tool it is being replaced with will now cost researchers and developers between $42,000 and $210,000 per month. The Twitter move caught the attention of lawmakers and civil society organizations (including the Coalition for Independent Technological Researchof which I am part of the board), who condemned Twitter’s decision.
The irony is that many of the issues people raised over the weekend while looking at the source code could be tested by the very same tool that Twitter is in the process of deactivating. For example, the researchers speculated that the “UkraineCrisisTopic” parameter found in Twitter’s source code was a signal for the algorithm to demote tweets that referenced the invasion of Ukraine. Using the Twitter API, the researchers could have retrieved tweets related to the invasion of Ukraine and analyzed their involvement to determine whether the algorithm amplified or de-amplified them. Tools like these allow the public to independently confirm, or refute, the nuggets of information provided by the source code. Without them, we are at the mercy of what Twitter tells us is true.
The Twitter hack is just the latest example of transparency washing to come from the tech industry. In 2020, Tik Tok it also used the words “source code” to dazzle regulators in the US and Europe who demanded more transparency about how the platform worked. It was the first platform to announce the opening of physical “Transparency Centers,” supposedly designed to “allow experts to examine and verify TikTok’s practices.” In 2021 I took part in a virtual tour of the Center, which was little more than a Powerpoint presentation from TikTok’s policy staff explaining how the app works and reviewing its already public content moderation policies. Three years later, the Centers remain closed to the public (TikTok’s website cites the pandemic as the reason) and TikTok has not released any source code.
If Musk had really wanted to bring accountability to Twitter’s algorithm, he could have. searchable in addition to transparent. For example, you might have created tools that simulate the outputs of an algorithmic system based on a series of inputs. This would allow researchers to run controlled experiments to test how recommender systems would rank actual content. These tools should be available to researchers who work in the public interest (and, of course, who can demonstrate how their methods respect people’s privacy) at little or no cost.
There is good news on this front: Europe’s Digital Services Act, which will come into force for very large online platforms as soon as this summer, will force platforms to perform third-party audits on their algorithms to ensure they are not put at risk. to harm people. The type of data that will be required for such audits goes far beyond what is currently provided by Twitter, TikTok, or any other platform.
Publishing the source code was a bold but hasty move that Twitter itself didn’t seem ready for: The GitHub repository has been updated at least twice since launch to remove embarrassing bits of code that probably should never have been made public. While the source code reveals the underlying logic of an algorithmic system, it tells us almost nothing about how the system will work in real time, in actual Tweets. Elon Musk’s decision leaves us without knowing what is happening right now on the platform, or what can happen next.
WIRED Opinion publishes articles by external contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints. Read more reviews hereand see our shipping guidelines here. Submit an opinion piece on opinion@wired.com.