The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet • Hacker News Board

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#51

Post by anonymouskimmer » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #32

causi wrote: post #9

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 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…

There's a good breakdown of the situation and arguments here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M ). The tl;dr is that it may not be possible to split a hair as thin as the difference between an automated recommendation algorithm and automated (or manual) moderation (if the system chooses not to put your tweets in the Trending Topics, are we refraining from up-signalling you or down-signalling you? Is "signa…

I presume that non-profit forums would be judgement proof (literal first amendment grounds). Possibly even including non-profit forums attached to a for-profit entity. With regard to Hacker News in particular the only possibly problematic element would be the YC-linked advertisement posts.

Of course I'm not a lawyer. But section 230 is not the only protection here.

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#52

Post by eli » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

hrunt wrote: post #41

eli wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would want Hacker News or any other forum to be legally responsible for comments posted by users?

No, I would not want HN legally responsible for comments posted by users. Hacker News does not directly promote content (aside from prioritizing content based on non-content factors [age, voting, etc.]). It does moderate, but that is not the same as promotion. The crux of the argument in this case is that the plaintiffs want Google held liable for promoting content, not hosting it. The difficulty the Supreme Court se…

I genuinely do not understand your definition of "promote"? Is the difference that Youtube recommendations are personalized?

Of course HN promotes content. There's much more content submitted than can fit on a screen. Automated filtering, human moderation, and signals from other users decide what to show you -- on both sites.

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#53

Post by billythemaniam » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #33

The reality is that most people, EVEN technical people, don't actually understand the Internet. The only people I consistently have conversed with who understand the Internet are technology advocates that have a deep background in Internet networking. Even on HN, most people believe many things about how the Internet works, at the networking layer, at the application layer, and socioculturally, that are not true, and…

I don't think it is necessary to understand how the internet works technically to "understand the internet". It's like saying a race car driver can't drive fast without understanding the physics of a piston.

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#54

Post by koboll » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #25

mikece wrote: post #5

I 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…

> It only makes sense that there should be an intermediate zone Care to share any of that sense?

Any Web 2.0 system's basic premise is that it provides a space where humans can be humans. The bedrock assumption is that people can POST things that a server will instantly and automatically display publicly, and that the server owner will not instantly become legally liable for what they post.

This mirrors pretty well how the rest of the world operates. If I walk into a Macy's and start screaming libel or inciting a riot, the Macy's Corporation is not liable for that speech. Why should a 'digital property' like a social media site work differently?

Of course, it doesn't totally erase the server owner's liability. If someone posts child pornography that my server displays, it is my responsibility to remove it as soon as I become aware of it, just as it is Macy's responsibility to escort the libel-screamer off the premises. Failure to do that can confer liability onto me.

To break this consensus is to break the ability to foster human interactions on the internet that mirror how humans interact in the real world.

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#55

Post by freejazz » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #43

eli wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would want Hacker News or any other forum to be legally responsible for comments posted by users?

Personally, I would want nobody to be "legally responsible" for comments posted by anybody or rather, I disagree that there should ever be any legal repercussions of any kind for something somebody just said.

So you'd have no problems if someone defamed you?

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#56

Post by karmelapple » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #29

Veen wrote: post #3

It 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…

Google decides what emails go in the gmail inbox vs spam folder vs rejected outright. Should they be legally responsible if an offensive email lands in your inbox?

My inbox is not available to the public, have public “like” counts and view counts, cannot be shared with a single click with the same viral network effects (sure, emails can be forwarded, but I think we can agree sharing emails vs sharing on social media is wildly different).

So I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made about the difference here. Agree?

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#57

Post by eli » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

hrunt wrote: post #50

eli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would challenge you to craft a legal opinion around 230 that excludes Youtube recommending harmful content from protection but not Google placing harmful content in the "Priority Inbox".

IANAL, but I would start developing my argument with the idea that emails Google placed in my Priority Inbox were sent to me specifically, and the intention of the sender is that I specifically would see it. Google is still not putting anything in front of my eyes that was not intended to be there anyway. When YouTube recommends content to me, the original author did not target that content specifically to me, and Yo…

When you post a story on HN you aren't specifically choosing to send it to a person. Is HN responsible if a harmful story reaches the front page?

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#58

Post by rgbrenner » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #12

ladyattis wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

Is the intention of the algo promotion or matching user interest to videos. There's a big difference to saying: I want you to watch this.. and I think you want to watch this.

The later is just sorting by additional attributes (video length, keywords in content, likelihood of clicking->watching, keywords of past content watched, ...). Youtube doesnt care what you watch... as long as they match what you want to watch to a list of videos, you stay on the site. If they dont, then you leave. The actual content of the videos doesnt matter to youtube. In this way, the page that displays the feed is very similar to showing search engine results sorted by best match, where the keywords are pulled from your past videos.

If sorting is now promotion and prohibited by 230, then the internet is f'd. Search engines are going to be completely useless.

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#59

Post by freejazz » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #18

mikece wrote: post #5

I 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-aut…

>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.

Okay - so in your universe, it's just as easy to punish them, not for the hosting, but the promotion of the content which is explicitly not covered in 230...

Re: The US Supreme Court doesn’t understand the internet

#60

Post by dsr_ » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #30

eli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that also make it incredibly difficult for a new startup to invent a better and less harmful recommendation system?

What would a non-harmful or less harmful (than what?) recommendation system look like? What's the end goal of a recommendation system?

What would it look like? It would look like a configurable search system with preloading of some choices.

You're watching Tie Your Mother Down, Queen, Rock in Rio 1985. Would you like to see (select as many as you want):