2 ms·
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 clarif
by 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 agoChatGPT is the publisher by the fact it has restrictions on your prompts. "As an AI model I can not provide..." etc.
- matt74827289 4y agoModeration of content does not imply publishing.
- graeme 4y agoSomeone is the publisher. It can’t be nobody
- gardenhedge 4y agoDoes Word moderate what I type into it? No because it's a tool. ChatGPT publishes
- graeme 4y agoThe 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.