3 ms·

Section 230 was about hosting user comments though. A company is still liable for what they publish. Microsoft, for example, can’t publish an article on Micros

• vineyardmike 4y ago
  The point is that pre-230, no one knew who was liable for comments, and 230 clarified. The tech industry needs a law detailing who is liable, the way 230 clarified. The AI-Generated art world seems to want the prompter to be the "artist", but if you prompt bing for search... are you the "creator"? It seems unlikely. On the other hand, Microsoft is "simply" using an algorithm to rehash the existing web.. just like search results page did before, so this is no different.
  • gardenhedge 4y ago
    ChatGPT is the publisher by the fact it has restrictions on your prompts. "As an AI model I can not provide..." etc.
    • matt74827289 4y ago
      Moderation of content does not imply publishing.
      • graeme 4y ago
        Someone is the publisher. It can’t be nobody
      • gardenhedge 4y ago
        Does Word moderate what I type into it? No because it's a tool. ChatGPT publishes
  • graeme 4y ago
    The web sites in search results were always liable for defamation though. And Microsoft/Google could have been had they rewritten snippets to falsely suggest a page had defamatory information (they don’t)
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The point is that pre-230, no one knew who was liable for comments, and 230 clarified. That's not really true; pre-230 there waa a pretty clear idea of how, absent additional legislation, traditional publisher and distributor liability would apply to online services, and what incentives that created with regard to offering, moderating, and engaging with such services. Section 230 was very much intended to alter the economic incentives, not just to “clarify” liability.
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Section 230 was about hosting user comments though. No, 230 is not about “hosting”, its about (what would, absent Section 230, legally be) publishing. > Microsoft, for example, can’t publish an article on Microsoft.com defaming people and cite section 230. It absolutely can, if some other “information content provider” submitted the information in it, because they are not legally it’s publisher in that case; that is the central point of § 230. [0] The question here seems to be what happens when the way interactive computer services relay information from other internet content providers is by farther from relaying distinct externally provided content units that may be mixed, ordered, promoted, demoted, or suppressed by an algorithm, and instead synthesizing new content units from externally provided and actively sourced information. But the 230 safe harbor doesn’t focus on content units (by any name), it focuses on information, so as long as the defamation comea from information provided by another “information content provider”, no matter what algorithmic means and content structure goes into presenting it, it would seem squarely within the safe harbor. When defamation arises not from a particular third-party source material, but only from the algorithmic synthesis, things get trickier, but if its all third partt information (even separate pieces of it that the algorithm presents together) it still seems within the safe harbor. When its (in whole or in part) information Microsoft actively sourced or that the MS-operated algorithm created ex nihilo (hallucination) that makes it defamation, though, that would seem to be Microsoft’s liability. [0] 47 USC § 230(c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.