3 ms·

> the content they are showing is "information provided by another information content provider." But they aren't. They make decisions about what goes into som

> the content they are showing is "information provided by another information content provider." But they aren't. They make decisions about what goes into someone's feed. When they started out and the feed was just a list of items posted by people or groups you followed then it was just 'showing' content. Using an algorithm to show people content that they will engage with more is not 'showing' something. It crosses the line into publishing. Facebook makes a decision about content

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> They make decisions about what goes into someone's feed. That's irrelevant to the law. The information itself is provided by another information content provider (i.e. whoever posted the status initially). That's who is liable for any damages caused by the content under the law today. > Using an algorithm to show people content that they will engage with more is not 'showing' something. All possible mechanisms of showing someone something with a computer involve algorithms. Even if you choose randomly, that is an algorithm. Same goes for sorting by date or alphabetically, since any sort is an algorithm by definition. There's nothing in the law that makes a special case for algorithmic decisions about what to show. > It crosses the line into publishing. I'm not sure whether you're expressing a preference here, or a belief about the legal status of Facebook's procedures. In case it is the latter: in fact, it does not cross the line into publishing, legally.