4 ms·

My personal take on this is that s.230 protections should not extend to companies using any kind of specialized "algorithm" to dictate what appears in a user's

My personal take on this is that s.230 protections should not extend to companies using any kind of specialized "algorithm" to dictate what appears in a user's default feed on the website. A feed or timeline view should be simply that: a scrollable list of the most recent visible things from people you have shown a specific interest in (follow/subscribe/whatever), and it should be the default view for the platform. Anyone deviating from that to add their cool special sauce should be excluded from those protections because that's editorializing their content. If they want to have some "explore" section that does the algorithmic magic, sure, but it should be opt-in. Carve out specific rules for users not logged in that can show the basic stuff (e.g.: "most interacted" -- likes and/or comments, "Latest from most subscribed"), perhaps a carve-out by region. Disallow banning people except specifically for extreme ToS violations, harassment, and other criminal activity. Apps must provide robust anti-harassment features (block lists, inability to tag users who have blocked you, those don't show up in search, etc.), reporting mechanisms, etc. If you deviate from these you lose s.230 and are open to being sued the same way newspapers are for their editorial content.

krapp 4y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  What is the point of linking to the law and how it is interpreted as a reply to people that think the law is bad, harmful, or needs updating? Your link makes reference to a similar kind of article about the First Ammendment, which is also bandied about as if it's some kind of rebuttal to people that think platforms are defacto government arms.
  - krapp 4y ago
    The point is to not have to waste time pissing into the wind of constant misinformation and propaganda about both the First Amendment and Section 230, rather than just doing the internet version of tapping at a sign on the wall. taps furiously
    - tinalumfoil 4y ago
      If you’re too lazy to participate in the discussion then don’t.
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      Except the sign has been put up in the wrong area and is not at all relevant to the discussion at all. Keep tapping on this "Quiet in the library sign" while the rest of us continue on our daily commute at this train station.
- jacooper 4y ago
  But OP is asking for a modification of Section 230.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  This is trite and misses my point. I'm saying explicitly the law should change. Not just for Meta, Youtube, etc., but everyone using any kind of logic beyond "most recent" or "most liked". If anything, my suggestions would remove protections from companies that are inherently trying to drive "interaction" and who do not moderate sufficiently. If sites had to worry that leaving comments from users up that will get them sued, they would be more proactive in removing comments. Instead, currently, they choose to highlight and elevate those comments to groups that they believe will find them abrasive, in search of interactions. I am pretty clearly arguing that their choice to spotlight certain content over others using some decision-making beyond "most recent" or "most liked" should be considered their own editorial content, which is already part of s.230. From your own link: If you said “Section 230 is a get out of jail card for websites!” You’re wrong. Again, websites are still 100% liable for any content that they themselves create. My argument is that the editorial decision to shove a comment from some rando I don't follow in front of me by Twitter should fall under the above, and that s.230 should be changed to specifically exempt based on the rules above.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >My argument is that the editorial decision to shove a comment from some rando I don't follow in front of me by Twitter should fall under the above, and that s.230 should be changed to specifically exempt based on the rules above. Except the use of an algorithm to determine where content is placed is not "editorializing" in any meaningful sense, nor is it equivalent to the platform "creating" that content, and thus making themselves, rather than the author, liable for it. Do you believe comments on Hacker News are "editorialized" by being upvoted or downvoted? Is Hacker News responsible for poorly written or false articles that gain traction on the site? It's an absurd argument, based on the misconception that platforms should be completely neutral in regards to content in order to receive Section 230 protection, when the entire purpose of the law is to protect exactly the kind of "editorializing" you're talking about. If you want the law to be repealed, just say that.
  - alphabetting 4y ago
    Losing the Youtube algorithm to a most-liked system or most-recent system would ruin it for me and I think most users. Also guessing that the only way they'd be able to operate an algorithm with no 230 protections would be 1000x more censorship.
themitigating 4y ago
Then won't they just censor more?
- maxfurman 4y ago
  If I'm reading this right, there would be more censorship _in the algorithmic feed_ (no one will get Alex Jones recommended) but the chronological feed will have less censorship (Alex Jones will still be on the platform and you can follow him if that's your cup of tea)
  - themitigating 4y ago
    So he his posts wouldn't be displayed, censored, to users who don't subscribe/follow to him.
    - BeefWellington 4y ago
      No, what I'm proposing is that once you create an account you see nothing until you start following people via the "exploration" or whatever, then your default view is essentially "you see what you followed/subscribed to". No banning Alex Jones (unless he does one of the bannable things). Advertisers are free to say they don't want to do business with his channels, etc. Some are free to say they do. You start exploring and see his stuff but don't want to? Block it / say "I don't wanna see this" and it should prevent his videos showing up on your feeds (and maybe reactions to it?). Those controls must work, not like the current versions.[1] I'm also suggesting that the idea of highlighting these tailored content views in this way as a default should count as editorializing, and should then open them to punishment for that content the way a newspaper publishing an editorial is. It won't fully solve the problem of "engagement-chasing" that currently has taken hold of social media (and really the Internet) but I don't see a better way. At the end of the day engagement = impressions = advertiser $ and I don't see a way to change that formula so there's less But IMO this makes the speech freer, the platforms more open (and gives them an out with advertisers "hey, we're required by law to do it this way"), and puts the users in the driver's seat when it comes to what they see. [1]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/research/library/user-controls/report/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/research/library/user-cont...
galdosdi 4y ago
I could not agree more. These companies who use algorithms to choose what user content to display should be held to the same standard as a publisher where a human chooses what letters to the editor to print in the newspaper. Fools think of social media as similar to a telephone and thus just a neutral platform, because you can communicate with each other. For hypothetical social media without an algorithmic feed (like Facebook at its inception, or phpbb forums, or IRC or Slack or email etc) this would be true. But modern social media does not just neutrally show what has been posted without favor to any. It is a machine that is carefully built by a large team to choose the posts that will most optimize the company's goals (mainly profit). Thus it's much more like a print newspaper's letter to the editors section, because out of a large number of submitted user posts, the company (using their algorithms to save themselves labor costs) they choose just a few to promote highly. Fundamentally, algorithmic recommendation is speech and endorsement by the algorithm operator, and if they have a problem with that, they can always put a human in the loop. It is crazy (and represents huge wealth transfer from society to these companies-- and moreover from the poorer to the richer) that they get away with having less responsiblity for doing something just because they automated it. By the same logic, it's bad for me to shoot people with a gun but becomes fine as long as it's not me doing it, but some Rube Goldberg contraption that automatically fires at people near my house. By the same logic, it may be illegal to knowingly sell cigarettes to minors, but you can just make a vending machine with no access control and then it's fine. Absolutely insane that they get away with less responsibility despite making the same editorial decisions, with the same benefits accruing to themselves, as a traditional publisher that picks and chooses what to display. And our whole society has absorbed this stupid paradigm. You hear people conflating the right to free speech with the right to have your speech amplified above other speech, which obviously makes no sense since it's a zero sum game. But you have people pretending the algorithms are invisible natural things. By the way, I am pessimistic. We are in too deep. An entire generation of school children is being raised on this stuff, and has been for almost a decade, creating a deep generational cycle of dependence. And ad tech has taken over the S&P500, making the wealthy elite dependent on the profits. It's just far too valuable a means of social control for it to just be given up without some countervailing force to incentivize it.
nradov 4y ago
No thanks. I don't want the federal government micromanaging social media product features. That should be left open to innovation and competition. If feeds default to ordering by recency then some accounts are going to post constantly just to always appear at the top. This will hide more valuable content. From a public policy standpoint, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has proposed extending Common Carrier legislation to cover social media. It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure whether it would be a net improvement. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
tomatotomato37 4y ago
Out of curiosity where would you put Reddit's sorting algorithm in these carve-outs? Because while there are some hidden anti-spam stuff they use, it is overall still a fairly braindead date-adjusted vote system, and I'm willing to bet their anti-spam stuff could still be clearly explained on a single page if any governments come knocking
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  This completely ignores that Reddit admin’s are also moderators that the moderators have extreme power in censorship, including to the topic, automated tools and algorithms.
- maxfurman 4y ago
  Reddit already allows you to sort by "new," which is pretty much what GP is asking for. r/popular might take a hit under this theoretical regime though
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
8note 4y ago
Why 230 protections though? It's still user submitted data, the recommendations are controlling links to it. Should companies be responsible for content on the other side of a link? What's to stop Facebook from splitting off the content host to be a different company, and then still having everything else be the same?
Melatonic 4y ago
Yea I agree - once they are highly tailoring the algo to show content they want then they are now actively participating in that content. It may be user generated originally but they are the ones that are choosing (through the algo) to show it to more and more people. I like this. Also we should probably just ban certain types of algorithms completely.....

krapp 4y ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

jimmydorry 4y ago
What is the point of linking to the law and how it is interpreted as a reply to people that think the law is bad, harmful, or needs updating? Your link makes reference to a similar kind of article about the First Ammendment, which is also bandied about as if it's some kind of rebuttal to people that think platforms are defacto government arms.
- krapp 4y ago
  The point is to not have to waste time pissing into the wind of constant misinformation and propaganda about both the First Amendment and Section 230, rather than just doing the internet version of tapping at a sign on the wall. taps furiously
  - tinalumfoil 4y ago
    If you’re too lazy to participate in the discussion then don’t.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    Except the sign has been put up in the wrong area and is not at all relevant to the discussion at all. Keep tapping on this "Quiet in the library sign" while the rest of us continue on our daily commute at this train station.
jacooper 4y ago
But OP is asking for a modification of Section 230.
BeefWellington 4y ago
This is trite and misses my point. I'm saying explicitly the law should change. Not just for Meta, Youtube, etc., but everyone using any kind of logic beyond "most recent" or "most liked". If anything, my suggestions would remove protections from companies that are inherently trying to drive "interaction" and who do not moderate sufficiently. If sites had to worry that leaving comments from users up that will get them sued, they would be more proactive in removing comments. Instead, currently, they choose to highlight and elevate those comments to groups that they believe will find them abrasive, in search of interactions. I am pretty clearly arguing that their choice to spotlight certain content over others using some decision-making beyond "most recent" or "most liked" should be considered their own editorial content, which is already part of s.230. From your own link: If you said “Section 230 is a get out of jail card for websites!” You’re wrong. Again, websites are still 100% liable for any content that they themselves create. My argument is that the editorial decision to shove a comment from some rando I don't follow in front of me by Twitter should fall under the above, and that s.230 should be changed to specifically exempt based on the rules above.
- krapp 4y ago
  >My argument is that the editorial decision to shove a comment from some rando I don't follow in front of me by Twitter should fall under the above, and that s.230 should be changed to specifically exempt based on the rules above. Except the use of an algorithm to determine where content is placed is not "editorializing" in any meaningful sense, nor is it equivalent to the platform "creating" that content, and thus making themselves, rather than the author, liable for it. Do you believe comments on Hacker News are "editorialized" by being upvoted or downvoted? Is Hacker News responsible for poorly written or false articles that gain traction on the site? It's an absurd argument, based on the misconception that platforms should be completely neutral in regards to content in order to receive Section 230 protection, when the entire purpose of the law is to protect exactly the kind of "editorializing" you're talking about. If you want the law to be repealed, just say that.
- alphabetting 4y ago
  Losing the Youtube algorithm to a most-liked system or most-recent system would ruin it for me and I think most users. Also guessing that the only way they'd be able to operate an algorithm with no 230 protections would be 1000x more censorship.

themitigating 4y ago

Then won't they just censor more?

maxfurman 4y ago
If I'm reading this right, there would be more censorship _in the algorithmic feed_ (no one will get Alex Jones recommended) but the chronological feed will have less censorship (Alex Jones will still be on the platform and you can follow him if that's your cup of tea)
- themitigating 4y ago
  So he his posts wouldn't be displayed, censored, to users who don't subscribe/follow to him.
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    No, what I'm proposing is that once you create an account you see nothing until you start following people via the "exploration" or whatever, then your default view is essentially "you see what you followed/subscribed to". No banning Alex Jones (unless he does one of the bannable things). Advertisers are free to say they don't want to do business with his channels, etc. Some are free to say they do. You start exploring and see his stuff but don't want to? Block it / say "I don't wanna see this" and it should prevent his videos showing up on your feeds (and maybe reactions to it?). Those controls must work, not like the current versions.[1] I'm also suggesting that the idea of highlighting these tailored content views in this way as a default should count as editorializing, and should then open them to punishment for that content the way a newspaper publishing an editorial is. It won't fully solve the problem of "engagement-chasing" that currently has taken hold of social media (and really the Internet) but I don't see a better way. At the end of the day engagement = impressions = advertiser $ and I don't see a way to change that formula so there's less But IMO this makes the speech freer, the platforms more open (and gives them an out with advertisers "hey, we're required by law to do it this way"), and puts the users in the driver's seat when it comes to what they see. [1]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/research/library/user-controls/report/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/research/library/user-cont...

galdosdi 4y ago

I could not agree more. These companies who use algorithms to choose what user content to display should be held to the same standard as a publisher where a human chooses what letters to the editor to print in the newspaper. Fools think of social media as similar to a telephone and thus just a neutral platform, because you can communicate with each other. For hypothetical social media without an algorithmic feed (like Facebook at its inception, or phpbb forums, or IRC or Slack or email etc) this would be true. But modern social media does not just neutrally show what has been posted without favor to any. It is a machine that is carefully built by a large team to choose the posts that will most optimize the company's goals (mainly profit). Thus it's much more like a print newspaper's letter to the editors section, because out of a large number of submitted user posts, the company (using their algorithms to save themselves labor costs) they choose just a few to promote highly. Fundamentally, algorithmic recommendation is speech and endorsement by the algorithm operator, and if they have a problem with that, they can always put a human in the loop. It is crazy (and represents huge wealth transfer from society to these companies-- and moreover from the poorer to the richer) that they get away with having less responsiblity for doing something just because they automated it. By the same logic, it's bad for me to shoot people with a gun but becomes fine as long as it's not me doing it, but some Rube Goldberg contraption that automatically fires at people near my house. By the same logic, it may be illegal to knowingly sell cigarettes to minors, but you can just make a vending machine with no access control and then it's fine. Absolutely insane that they get away with less responsibility despite making the same editorial decisions, with the same benefits accruing to themselves, as a traditional publisher that picks and chooses what to display. And our whole society has absorbed this stupid paradigm. You hear people conflating the right to free speech with the right to have your speech amplified above other speech, which obviously makes no sense since it's a zero sum game. But you have people pretending the algorithms are invisible natural things. By the way, I am pessimistic. We are in too deep. An entire generation of school children is being raised on this stuff, and has been for almost a decade, creating a deep generational cycle of dependence. And ad tech has taken over the S&P500, making the wealthy elite dependent on the profits. It's just far too valuable a means of social control for it to just be given up without some countervailing force to incentivize it.

nradov 4y ago

No thanks. I don't want the federal government micromanaging social media product features. That should be left open to innovation and competition. If feeds default to ordering by recency then some accounts are going to post constantly just to always appear at the top. This will hide more valuable content. From a public policy standpoint, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has proposed extending Common Carrier legislation to cover social media. It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure whether it would be a net improvement. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...

tomatotomato37 4y ago

Out of curiosity where would you put Reddit's sorting algorithm in these carve-outs? Because while there are some hidden anti-spam stuff they use, it is overall still a fairly braindead date-adjusted vote system, and I'm willing to bet their anti-spam stuff could still be clearly explained on a single page if any governments come knocking

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
This completely ignores that Reddit admin’s are also moderators that the moderators have extreme power in censorship, including to the topic, automated tools and algorithms.
maxfurman 4y ago
Reddit already allows you to sort by "new," which is pretty much what GP is asking for. r/popular might take a hit under this theoretical regime though

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

8note 4y ago

Why 230 protections though? It's still user submitted data, the recommendations are controlling links to it. Should companies be responsible for content on the other side of a link? What's to stop Facebook from splitting off the content host to be a different company, and then still having everything else be the same?

Melatonic 4y ago

Yea I agree - once they are highly tailoring the algo to show content they want then they are now actively participating in that content. It may be user generated originally but they are the ones that are choosing (through the algo) to show it to more and more people. I like this. Also we should probably just ban certain types of algorithms completely.....