3 ms·

> We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something el

> We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. We fundamentally disagree on whether or not what Facebook "should" have expected or "should" have done is worth considering. I don't think it's legally relevant. Profits can demonstrate incentive that otherwise wouldn't exist. The existing legal precedent for how algorithms are considered under tort liability [1] are still unclear. It's clear to me that allowing this lawsuit to move forward would be directly contradicting the ruling of Force v. Facebook (2019) and would force a ruling on how AI algorithms should be held liable with respect to section 230. From the perspective of the user, making a platform liable would mean that the platform would fundamentally shift what users are allowed to post and strongly weakens basic rights to freedom of expression. It's hard to depict how different and more censored the internet would be if section 230 continues to become weakened. "Critically, the finding that AI algorithms can be found to be harmful allows for the tort liability process to come into effect. While this kind of legal approach has not yet been taken, Patel indicates that corporate liability is a possibility. If an AI algorithm causes harm, it must be prosecuted through tort liability." "However, in the same timeframe as Patel’s ruling in 2019, ... a group of U.S. citizens who were victims of a Hamas terrorist attack, sued Facebook, arguing that Facebook implicitly assisted Hamas by keeping their violence-promoting content online through their AI algorithm’s oversight. [12] However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), the rule that protects social media platforms from liability for content on their platforms, the court found that Facebook could not be found to have criminal or civil liability for content. [13] This case complicates the implications of Patel, as it found that Facebook was shielded from liability because the content itself was not created by the platform. " [1] https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort-liability-to-social-media-algorithms https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort...

giraffe_lady 4y ago
This is another contortion. Holding an entity accountable for the results of deploying an algorithm is not the same as holding them liable for content posted by other people on their platform. The algorithm in this case governs how and to who that content is shown, but they are still two separate things. A court could definitely find that for example there's no liability for posting certain content in general, but there is for posting it like that. Court isn't a context-free zone, they absolutely may consider what an entity did know or should have known about the future consequences of their actions. As in the different categories of negligence, which this is similar to. Are you a lawyer why are you using their jargon so heavily? The lawyers will do that part, in the courts. Here, in this context, it's just another rhetorical flourish to distract attention away from your actual position. No one cares what a tort is just say your piece in normal words and stop trying to obscure it behind the facade of technical jargon.
- knaik94 4y ago
  My position is that Facebook should be protected under section 230. Section 230 says no online content hosting platform will be liable for what their users post as long as they attempt content moderation in good faith. My understanding of this lawsuit is, Facebook is being sued for 2 Billion USD because it was enabling hateful speech and targeted posts that lead to the death of man. Facebook is allegedly directly liable because of poor moderation. The distinction you are making doesn't make sense. Are you making an analogy to the idea that you can use the word fire but you can't yell fire in a crowded place? Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. The complete weights of what is highlighted are also unique per user. You're arguing that Facebook has a duty of care, but as it stands section 230 already addresses that. The duty of care is fulfilled with good faith moderation. The only way Facebook can be found liable is if section 230 is weakened and good faith moderation is redefined. "Tort liability indicates that someone is held accountable for wrong actions (other than under contract." Tort liability is the phrase you would search if you wanted to learn about previous legal rulings related to this. I thought the Columbia Law Review article I linked was pretty approachable. It's not possible to talk about this in a meaningful way without understanding tort. I haven't tried to obscure or distract from my position intentionally. I think Force v. Facebook was the proper ruling. There's nothing new courts have to decide, because section 230 already addresses this. Fundamentally, people are hateful and will engage and interact with hateful content. It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I made my position clear without technical jargon in the top comment. The DW article says the lawsuit wants to legally force Facebook to change its algorithm. The change would directly be related to moderation. This would be a slippery slope. Failing to understand the limitation of what an algorithm does is the only way you could expect a separation of the concept of posting content vs posting it "like that". I hope I was able to clarify my position. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-hearing-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-he...
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    > Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. They do, by having control of the algorithm. It didn't just spring forth, they made it. More relevant, they have the off switch. "Good faith moderation" means monitoring the actual results of applying it and making changes if the results are harmful. > It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I'm not blaming the algorithm, I'm blaming the people who implemented it, failed to understand the potential consequences of using it in this way, and then failed to notice or understand what was happening. You can't just abdicate moral responsibility by putting "the algorithm" between your actions and their consequences. A for loop and a couple of if statements is an algorithm. Someone makes it, gives it input, applies the output to some task. That is the culpable action, not whatever happens inside the algorithm.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

This is another contortion. Holding an entity accountable for the results of deploying an algorithm is not the same as holding them liable for content posted by other people on their platform. The algorithm in this case governs how and to who that content is shown, but they are still two separate things. A court could definitely find that for example there's no liability for posting certain content in general, but there is for posting it like that. Court isn't a context-free zone, they absolutely may consider what an entity did know or should have known about the future consequences of their actions. As in the different categories of negligence, which this is similar to. Are you a lawyer why are you using their jargon so heavily? The lawyers will do that part, in the courts. Here, in this context, it's just another rhetorical flourish to distract attention away from your actual position. No one cares what a tort is just say your piece in normal words and stop trying to obscure it behind the facade of technical jargon.

knaik94 4y ago
My position is that Facebook should be protected under section 230. Section 230 says no online content hosting platform will be liable for what their users post as long as they attempt content moderation in good faith. My understanding of this lawsuit is, Facebook is being sued for 2 Billion USD because it was enabling hateful speech and targeted posts that lead to the death of man. Facebook is allegedly directly liable because of poor moderation. The distinction you are making doesn't make sense. Are you making an analogy to the idea that you can use the word fire but you can't yell fire in a crowded place? Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. The complete weights of what is highlighted are also unique per user. You're arguing that Facebook has a duty of care, but as it stands section 230 already addresses that. The duty of care is fulfilled with good faith moderation. The only way Facebook can be found liable is if section 230 is weakened and good faith moderation is redefined. "Tort liability indicates that someone is held accountable for wrong actions (other than under contract." Tort liability is the phrase you would search if you wanted to learn about previous legal rulings related to this. I thought the Columbia Law Review article I linked was pretty approachable. It's not possible to talk about this in a meaningful way without understanding tort. I haven't tried to obscure or distract from my position intentionally. I think Force v. Facebook was the proper ruling. There's nothing new courts have to decide, because section 230 already addresses this. Fundamentally, people are hateful and will engage and interact with hateful content. It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I made my position clear without technical jargon in the top comment. The DW article says the lawsuit wants to legally force Facebook to change its algorithm. The change would directly be related to moderation. This would be a slippery slope. Failing to understand the limitation of what an algorithm does is the only way you could expect a separation of the concept of posting content vs posting it "like that". I hope I was able to clarify my position. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-hearing-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-he...
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. They do, by having control of the algorithm. It didn't just spring forth, they made it. More relevant, they have the off switch. "Good faith moderation" means monitoring the actual results of applying it and making changes if the results are harmful. > It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I'm not blaming the algorithm, I'm blaming the people who implemented it, failed to understand the potential consequences of using it in this way, and then failed to notice or understand what was happening. You can't just abdicate moral responsibility by putting "the algorithm" between your actions and their consequences. A for loop and a couple of if statements is an algorithm. Someone makes it, gives it input, applies the output to some task. That is the culpable action, not whatever happens inside the algorithm.