5 ms·
Where does this idea that section 230 doesn't apply to recommendations because they "can count as their own form of content" stop? Why should it only apply to p
by amadeuspagel 4y ago
Where does this idea that section 230 doesn't apply to recommendations because they "can count as their own form of content" stop? Why should it only apply to personalized recommendations? Why shouldn't the HN frontpage, or any HN comment page count as "its own form of content"?
- Kon-Peki 4y agoYou may want to read the actual arguments that are being made [1]. Keep in mind that the US Congress passed a law in the 1990s (including section 230) that says you can't sue someone for x, y, and z. But then they passed another law in the 2000s that says you can sue somebody for a, b, and c. Resolving this apparent contradiction is exactly the point of the Supreme Court taking up this case. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...
- amadeuspagel 4y ago> Third, the Ninth and Second Circuits erred in holding that section 230(c)(1) protects a defendant if it sends to a user content which the user did not actually request. A defendant is acting as the provider of an “interactive computer service,” and thus within the scope of section 230(c)(1), when it is providing “access...to a computer server.” A computer functions as a “server,” as that term is used in section 230, only when it is providing to a user a file (such as text, or a video), which the user has actually requested, or is performing other tasks (such as a search) at the request of the user. I don't even see how that's relevant. When I open youtube, I'm requesting recommendations. It's like a search, except I'm not searching for anything on a specific topic, but just for things that will interest me. (Some search engines, like HN's, allow an empty search, which in HN's case just shows all posts sorted by score[1]. Think of recommendations as a personalized empty search.) [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q= https://hn.algolia.com/?q=
- henryfjordan 4y agoHNs algorithm is driven directly by UGC (upvotes) and basic math. You could argue that HN should get 230 protection because the front page is decided by the users. YouTube uses some algorithm that has all kinds of levers that YouTube controls, not the users.
- amadeuspagel 4y agoHN downweights certain topics. Dang is quite open about this[1]. This is a kind of content moderation, which is what section 230 was written to protect. If removing posts is legitimate, downweighting them must be as well. [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20downweight&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- dredmorbius 4y agoSome websites / domains also carry a penalty. This can be overcome with votes and comment activity, or removed by mod action on a given post (which can be requested by emailing mods if you suspect it's the case). See, e.g., <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10448419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10448419> & <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929687>
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoDang deletes posts that are not in the spirit of HN. That is editorializing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIt is curating and editorializing compared to a dumb purveyor like an ISP.
- Analemma_ 4y agoSo what? Section 230 does not say anything about curating and editorializing. The insistence people have that Section 230 makes a "platforms vs. publishers" distinction is bizarre; it says no such thing and never has.
- mrguyorama 4y agoSection 230 does not care, has never cared, and was never intended to care. The ENTIRE point of section 230 was to make it that someone posting child porn to facebook doesn't put Zuckerberg in jail for distribution of child porn