3 ms·

I considered the widely-used 'hot' algorithm and I don't think that really qualifies as a 'creative work' on the part of the site. The 'top from last hour/day/m

I considered the widely-used 'hot' algorithm and I don't think that really qualifies as a 'creative work' on the part of the site. The 'top from last hour/day/month/year' and 'hot' algorithms are really elementary sorting methods that are in the same league as FIFO.

quotemstr 5y ago
Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why? All a ranking algorithm is doing is making suggestions that certain content be read before other content. That's protected speech.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why? I'm not talking about the legality, I'm talking about the liability. If one user posts defamatory/libelous speech and Facebook decides to blast it to 1 billion users because their secret sauce algorithm found that it really cranks the revenue dial, Facebook should share some culpability in that defamation lawsuit. A basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho A "hot" algorithm can blast high engagement libel in front of people as well as a fancy algorithm. If the "hot" algorithm and the fancier algorithm are both content neutral, on what basis can you distinguish the two as a matter of law? Does the hot algorithm become illegal if a PhD implements it? I'm at a loss about what distinction you're actually trying to draw. Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable?
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying anything about outlawing anything, just assigning liability. > Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable? The objectionable conduct is pretty thoroughly covered in the article, but to review: > "Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety"
      - quotemstr 5y ago
        Illegal, liable, doesn't matter --- you want to use the state to drive certain kinds of ranking off the internet. Fine. What, precisely, is the line between algorithms acceptable to you and algorithms not? What is the precise conduct that would make liability attach to a ranking algorithm? You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law.
        mullingitover 5y ago
        > You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law. I thought I made it pretty clear from the outset I was talking about removing CDA Sec 230 protections for sites using bespoke (i.e. proprietary) curation algorithms for their feeds.
        quotemstr 5y ago
        So any filter algorithm would be okay if open source?

quotemstr 5y ago

Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why? All a ranking algorithm is doing is making suggestions that certain content be read before other content. That's protected speech.

mullingitover 5y ago
> Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why? I'm not talking about the legality, I'm talking about the liability. If one user posts defamatory/libelous speech and Facebook decides to blast it to 1 billion users because their secret sauce algorithm found that it really cranks the revenue dial, Facebook should share some culpability in that defamation lawsuit. A basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho A "hot" algorithm can blast high engagement libel in front of people as well as a fancy algorithm. If the "hot" algorithm and the fancier algorithm are both content neutral, on what basis can you distinguish the two as a matter of law? Does the hot algorithm become illegal if a PhD implements it? I'm at a loss about what distinction you're actually trying to draw. Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable?
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying anything about outlawing anything, just assigning liability. > Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable? The objectionable conduct is pretty thoroughly covered in the article, but to review: > "Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety"
    - quotemstr 5y ago
      Illegal, liable, doesn't matter --- you want to use the state to drive certain kinds of ranking off the internet. Fine. What, precisely, is the line between algorithms acceptable to you and algorithms not? What is the precise conduct that would make liability attach to a ranking algorithm? You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law.
      - mullingitover 5y ago
        > You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law. I thought I made it pretty clear from the outset I was talking about removing CDA Sec 230 protections for sites using bespoke (i.e. proprietary) curation algorithms for their feeds.
        quotemstr 5y ago
        So any filter algorithm would be okay if open source?