The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
1–10 of 185 posts
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#2Alternate link: https://archive.ph/qHVIX
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#3It seems to me the difference in this case is that it complains about content promotion, not content publishing. The issue is that YouTube's algorithms promoted extremist content to people who were prone to extremist behavior. That's not quite the same as simply hosting extremist content uploaded by users.
As it says on the Supreme Court site:
"Issue: Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information."
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl...
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#4Has it ever?
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#5I suspect Section 230 will need to be revamped or at least more thoroughly defined. Some interpretations suggest that any editorial action by a platform (aside from those required by law) changes them from being a common carrier to a publisher with all of the liability that goes with it. It only makes sense that there should be an intermediate zone where a platform provider can engage in editorialism/content restriction without falling under the liability of being a publisher.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#6I wonder if making platforms liable for providing the identity of content producers is a fair balance between providing the platform immunity and allowing those potentially harmed by content to pursue the content creator if needed.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#7I suspect Section 230 will need to be revamped or at least more thoroughly defined. Some interpretations suggest that any editorial action by a platform (aside from those required by law) changes them from being a common carrier to a publisher with all of the liability that goes with it. It only makes sense that there should be an intermediate zone where a platform provider can engage in editorialism/content restrict…
I wonder of scale of distribution would be a reasonable way to scope liability. For example, if you create a post and 50 of your friends see it, immunity for the platform. If you create a post and the platform distributes it to 1 million people, they now have publisher liability.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#8I wonder if making platforms liable for providing the identity of content producers is a fair balance between providing the platform immunity and allowing those potentially harmed by content to pursue the content creator if needed.
How is mandating cyberstalking access going to solve anything?
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#9Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider
Should it? This feels a lot like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation. Either you're a neutral party or you are not. Being a trillion-dollar company doesn't exempt you from that. Letting a computer make the decisions instead of a person doesn't exempt you either.
Youtube would be in no danger if all it was doing was keyword-matching with recommended videos. Instead it created profit by designing its algorithm to maximize engagement by any means necessary, especially via outrage and bandwagoning. What the fuck did they expect to happen when they created a money engine that runs on human emotional intensity?
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#10Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider Should it? This feels a lot like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation. Either you're a neutral party or you are not. Being a trillion-dollar company doesn't exempt you from that. Letting a computer make the de…
The thing is that the law as written allows them to do just that. If they don't like your content on YouTube, they can punt it instantly. And it can be for ANY REASON. And that's not even including their first amendment right to refuse distributing or listing your content.