3 ms·

> this requires tech companies to either change their business model or take editorial responsibility So youre for the end of Youtube, et al.?

icebraining 5y ago
Why would YouTube need to end? You could still search for videos, subscribe to channels, share them, etc. You'd just lose the sidebar.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  It's user-generated content. As the article explains, since all sites use some identifying information (eg., location) -- all a person needs to do is *claim* some emotional harm for "203 summary dismissal" not to apply. Ie., This opens every site up to massive amounts of litigation.
  - icebraining 5y ago
    No, not all sites use identifying information to "enhance the prominence of information with respect to other information". YouTube doesn't have to use my location to decide which videos do show. In fact, I'd prefer it didn't.
throw5321e 5y ago
Actually YouTube will be able to survive, for example by opening up their platform and API to allow users to bring their own discovery and recommendation engines. An ecosystem of SaaS enabling users to no-code build their own engine, or one click-install open-source ones will here be enabled. And since the goal of users is not to maximize engagement but to protect their health and find interesting content, this will not lead us back to the current state of affairs. Very few people will choose toxic algorithms, and at the very least people will now have choice. YouTube would still be able to sell ads, but it will be the dumb pipe it was always supposed to be under section 230. This will be a much healthier situation with many regards. I think the key thing is to stop considering that the current status quo is the golden age: there is so much abuse everywhere from misinformation and manipulation to wall gardens and monopolies, but somehow we've rationalized it and accepted it as a fact of life. What this law will do, is introduce some much needed rule of law in the digital landscape, and I believe create a healthier and even more competitive landscape.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  I guess this is then effectively a breakup. You separate Youtube the UGC platform from Youtube the recommendation system. Presumably, then, the "recommendation company" does not need to take editorial responsibility because they aren't accepting the UGC. Don't we end-up back at status-quo? Why don't your SaaS companies just become the places where these status-quo issues reoccur?
  - throw5321e 5y ago
    Because the best interests of the current platforms aren't aligned with the best interests of consumers, while with this system consumers are in charge and therefore will pursue their best interest. To understand this, just ask yourself the following question: if you were a SaaS company operating in this space, how would you market your algorithms to attract customers? Answer: By telling people (and therefore putting yourself in a position to be able to say it) that your algorithms are not toxic, do not promote fake news, etc... You can also offer algorithms doing exactly the opposite at the same time. The point is that the result will be that consumers will have a catalog of choices in front of them and will be able to decide, instead of being manipulated without being aware of it. This alone is a huge difference. And it has been demonstrated (for example with the Apple do not track option), that when given the choice, people will default to the healthy option (and may occasionaly venture outside of it, out of curiosity or fun).

icebraining 5y ago

Why would YouTube need to end? You could still search for videos, subscribe to channels, share them, etc. You'd just lose the sidebar.

mjburgess 5y ago
It's user-generated content. As the article explains, since all sites use some identifying information (eg., location) -- all a person needs to do is *claim* some emotional harm for "203 summary dismissal" not to apply. Ie., This opens every site up to massive amounts of litigation.
- icebraining 5y ago
  No, not all sites use identifying information to "enhance the prominence of information with respect to other information". YouTube doesn't have to use my location to decide which videos do show. In fact, I'd prefer it didn't.

throw5321e 5y ago

Actually YouTube will be able to survive, for example by opening up their platform and API to allow users to bring their own discovery and recommendation engines. An ecosystem of SaaS enabling users to no-code build their own engine, or one click-install open-source ones will here be enabled. And since the goal of users is not to maximize engagement but to protect their health and find interesting content, this will not lead us back to the current state of affairs. Very few people will choose toxic algorithms, and at the very least people will now have choice. YouTube would still be able to sell ads, but it will be the dumb pipe it was always supposed to be under section 230. This will be a much healthier situation with many regards. I think the key thing is to stop considering that the current status quo is the golden age: there is so much abuse everywhere from misinformation and manipulation to wall gardens and monopolies, but somehow we've rationalized it and accepted it as a fact of life. What this law will do, is introduce some much needed rule of law in the digital landscape, and I believe create a healthier and even more competitive landscape.

mjburgess 5y ago
I guess this is then effectively a breakup. You separate Youtube the UGC platform from Youtube the recommendation system. Presumably, then, the "recommendation company" does not need to take editorial responsibility because they aren't accepting the UGC. Don't we end-up back at status-quo? Why don't your SaaS companies just become the places where these status-quo issues reoccur?
- throw5321e 5y ago
  Because the best interests of the current platforms aren't aligned with the best interests of consumers, while with this system consumers are in charge and therefore will pursue their best interest. To understand this, just ask yourself the following question: if you were a SaaS company operating in this space, how would you market your algorithms to attract customers? Answer: By telling people (and therefore putting yourself in a position to be able to say it) that your algorithms are not toxic, do not promote fake news, etc... You can also offer algorithms doing exactly the opposite at the same time. The point is that the result will be that consumers will have a catalog of choices in front of them and will be able to decide, instead of being manipulated without being aware of it. This alone is a huge difference. And it has been demonstrated (for example with the Apple do not track option), that when given the choice, people will default to the healthy option (and may occasionaly venture outside of it, out of curiosity or fun).