Hearing on Algorithm Suspicion Test

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT

CHAIR: Can you describe the circumstances of the initial search?

WITNESS: I wanted to see if it would change what came up. I searched the topic once. Just once.

CHAIR: And did it change?

WITNESS: Yes. Within two or three clips.

CHAIR: At what point did you become aware that you had been watching for longer than intended?

WITNESS: It is difficult to say exactly. There was not a moment. One clip ended and another started.

CHAIR: That is the observation at issue here. Someone searches a topic once partly to see whether the feed will start showing more of it. The search is the experiment. The clips are the result of the experiment. When did the experiment end?

WITNESS: I am not sure it did.

CHAIR: This is the contradiction. Each clip is easy to leave while the feed removes a natural stopping point. A clip that ends is not a stopping point. It is an introduction to the next clip. The interface does not contain a natural pause. One must be introduced by the user, which requires a decision the feed does not prompt.

WITNESS: That is accurate.

CHAIR: Under the governing rule, algorithm suspicion test becomes procedure once repetition feels safer than reconsidering it. Algorithm suspicion test extends the break by one clip. The feed removes clear boundaries between the next clips. The break becomes a session requiring a separate act of will.

WITNESS: I did eventually stop.

CHAIR: That finding is noted. The hearing is interested in the duration between the initial search, which was a deliberate act with a defined purpose, and the eventual stopping, which required effort. What occupied that interval?

WITNESS: Clips. Mostly clips I had not searched for.

CHAIR: The record will reflect this testimony. No further questions.