The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
11–20 of 185 posts
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#12Whether 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.
If they don't like your content on YouTube, they can punt it instantly. And it can be for ANY REASON
Certainly. But Section 230, at least from my reading, does not protect them for the promotion of content. I could be wrong about that. The Supreme Court will decide. Personally I'd find it delightful if the rage-engine got smashed with a legal hammer and my Youtube recommendations were as useful as they were fifteen years ago.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#13I 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?
One of the first challenges was the Zeran v. American Online case where a business owner was harmed but was never able to compel AOL to provide the identity of the person creating the harmful content. Forcing platforms to provide identity information in pursuit of legal action would allow action against the formally anonymous poster. As it stands today, an anonymous person (or botnet) can post whatever they want with no fear they will be exposed.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#14I 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…
The problem isn’t the definition it’s that companies want the common carrier status without actually acting like one. The phone company doesn’t editorialize and we would think it insane if they started doing so.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#15230 would be okay if the user had the ability to choose the algorithm that determines what content that user sees.
That was one of the early ideas for Twitter when Musk took over. Could even have external, independent “filter providers”.
Then the user a chose what bubble they want to live in. Or none at all, if they are brave enough to see opposing opinions.
But if the web site decides the algorithm for the user, well, then the web site is the same as a newspaper or TV channel.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#16I 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…
The problem isn’t the definition it’s that companies want the common carrier status without actually acting like one. The phone company doesn’t editorialize and we would think it insane if they started doing so.
The phone company doesn't fill your line 24/7 with unsolicited and illegal content, either, which any unmoderated comment section does.
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#17It 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 immuni…
How could they fix that? If it was that easy to reliably identify illegal/extremist content and prevent it from being recommended they’d just take it down
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#18I 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…
> Some interpretations suggest that any editorial action by a platform [...] changes them from being a common carrier to a publisher
None that have been made with a straight face before a real court, that I'm aware of. That's the spin that the activists put on this, not something that anyone thinks SCOTUS is going to rule on.
You're absolutely right that 230 as written doesn't really speak well to the modern semi-automated echo chamber. But improperly written laws are congress's job to fix, not the courts. Courts step in when laws conflict, they aren't there to figure out how to solve problems with new laws.
The simplest way to look at the spirit of this law is: Congress said that internet companies shouldn't be punished just for hosting other people's opinions. And at the end of the day, TikTok and YouTube and Facebook are still just hosting this data. They didn't write it. They don't curate it. Anyone can post. Anyone can read.
Arguments about "recommendation algorithms" are legitimate, but not really in scope of the first amendment and liability issues envisioned by the original law. They're just not. It's not something congress thought about. And if congress didn't have a clue, why should the courts?
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If they don't like your content on YouTube, they can punt it instantly. And it can be for ANY REASON Certainly. But Section 230, at least from my reading, does not protect them for the promotion of content. I could be wrong about that. The Supreme Court will decide. Personally I'd find it delightful if the rage-engine got smashed with a legal hammer and my Youtube recommendations were as useful as they were fifteen y…
Wouldn't that also make it incredibly difficult for a new startup to invent a better and less harmful recommendation system?
Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet
#20just a series of tubes