12 ms·

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 "m

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 If you want the law to be repealed, just say that.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.

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.