6 ms·

Big Tech's future is up to a Supreme Court that doesn't understand it

36 points by xrayarx 4y ago

elmerfud 4y ago
These articles just show how detached people are thinking the "on an iphone" is somehow new and never before seen. They've fallen prey to their own marketing ideology. What "big tech" is doing is not new it's the same game that companies have been doing since there have been companies. Common carrier status was always about not being party to messages of your users. Big tech is absolutely party to the messages of their users, even private ones. We all know it, they do it intentionally and even the stodgy old people on the supreme court can clearly see their game. If you're going to "control the narrative" by choosing what people see and what the don't, then you need to be responsible for what is displayed. This isn't and opt-in level of control there's not even an opt-out. They blatantly decide what the news is and feed it to you, no matter what you try and do to search around it. It has always blown my mind that google maps has no option to show all the points of interest no matter how far you zoom in. Just one tiny example of a service populated by users but then controlled by the machine. Be a common carrier or don't be. This manipulation game needs to end. I don't know what the court will do but hopefully provide guidelines on what common carrier is.
- l33t233372 4y ago
  How can you expect a service like Youtube to operate with “no” algorithm(the word “no” is in quotation marks because even a strictly chronological feed would be an algorithm)? You would actually prefer to get on Youtube and see the thousands of awful videos uploaded before the one that’s related to what you’ve recently watched?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    They might not be able to operate. That’s the point. In some cases, it might kill the service (and whether that’s desirable is going to be a function of your viewpoint).
    - l33t233372 4y ago
      Youtube is a great service and if the law will make it go away, we must change the law.
      - rnd0 4y ago
        That's highly debateable. From my point of view youtube is a disinformation vector which is far prone to indoctrinating people into extremist views because of the way the algorithm acts. From my point of view, I think that losing it would be a net win for society as a whole. I use youtube -daily. But I see it for what it is.
  - elmerfud 4y ago
    No "algorithm" isn't no indexing method, try not to confuse the two things. I put algorithm in quotes because big tech is using an algorithm to force feed a narrative to people not just index content. See the maps example. Libraries seem to function just fine and people find things with indexing but without force feeding a narrative.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    To be honest? Yeah! I would love to see curation by the users and content creators instead of YouTube itself. I wish I could sort my subscriptions into categories and just see the newest content from my subscriptions. I would love to organically discover new channels through suggestions by YouTube communities instead of a faceless algorithm optimized for advertiser friendliness. That's how YouTube started and it worked great. Now I have to fight the site to find content because it's been demonetized and YouTube won't suggest it anymore...
- scott00 4y ago
  This case has literally nothing to do with common carrier status. Neither side is claiming that Google or Twitter are common carriers.
freedude 4y ago
Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. This is a distraction and non-issue... “The court might think it's doing one thing and it's actually doing something very different,” said Evelyn Douek, a law professor at Stanford who specializes in tech law. “It’s ill-matched to the problem.” If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. The fact is Big Tech has dug its own grave long ago, and that should have been obvious since the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
- jen20 4y ago
  I broadly agree with you, but: > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason This might be true of appointed judges. It certainly is not true of elected ones.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. Certain types of promotion and downvoting are clearly within the legislative intent of Section 230. Suggestion may not be, and I am sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that recommendations -- and particularly push notifications and the like -- may not be covered by 230. (As always, it would be much better if the legislature simply did their damn job, but we seem to be content with permanent gridlock.) > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. I have no doubt that many in the legal field have this opinion -- particularly judges -- but you seem to be wildly under-estimating the degree of innumeracy on the bench. And, indeed, through most of the America's professional class. Most of the lawyers that I know haven't taken a mathematics course since high school, and one has never even taken a Calculus course (his college mathematics requirement was essentially a repeat of high school algebra). Neither of the judges I know are capable of even non-trivial computer use. Technological illiteracy really is an apt metaphor. Within the legal community, somehow, wanton ignorance of the very basics of human knowledge in various fields is considered a major deficit. But technological illiteracy is if anything a badge of pride and a sign of status. I have no doubt that these people are capable of understanding the technical details, but I'm also highly skeptical that they have the time for such an enormous undertaking given the typical state of numeracy and technical literacy on the bench.
remarkEon 4y ago
This Axios "article" does not mention the actual cases[1][2], so I'm left to trust that the two people in the by-line actually know what they're talking about. In case you don't like making those sorts of assumptions, here's the summary from scotusblog on the two cases. Oral argument is 21-22 FEB. >Issue: Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. >Issues: (1) Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and “regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use; and (2) whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl... [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-ta...
boh 4y ago
Tech isn't particularly complicated from a legal perspective especially in this case. Regardless of whatever algorithms or infrastructure being used to power it, Twitter and Google function mostly as media companies. Section 230 was put together in a completely different political and economic environment than what we have today--granting tech firms powers they would've unlikely been able to secure at any other time. If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand".
- thwayunion 4y ago
  I largely agree; the questions here are primarily legal, not technical, and a lot will boil down to legislative intent. As a technical person, I am actually sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that Section 230 may not necessarily protect recommendation systems designed for engagement maximization, and particularly not in the case of push notifications or the like. > If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand". The honest truth is that if they lose this case it will be because Big Tech pissed off conservatives. The court is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. If the courts don't pull out of the legitimacy tail-spin and return to a situation where at least issues of commerce are less politicized, the US may start facing some problems reminiscent of emerging markets with weaker rule of law/capital protections.
  - boh 4y ago
    The "legitimacy" of the Supreme Court has always been in question, especially if they draw conclusions that people don't agree with. Law is subjective despite whatever fabulistic narratives that may suggest otherwise. That's why there's nine justices and not just one that makes "the" objective conclusion. There will be no crisis if the courts decide against whatever conclusions you feel are more legitimate.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      The unique/new concern is less about legitimacy in the political/culture war sense and more about investment risk. Companies like Disney and FAANGs getting caught in the middle of political battles is different in kind and, if it accelerates, will make the US a much riskier place to deploy capital.
ttt3ts 4y ago
Alright, given the volume of messages on FB, twitter, etc, isn't choosing what messages you promote approximately equivalent to publishing anything? I am pretty sure you can find any opinion/view on these platforms.

36 points by xrayarx 4y ago

These articles just show how detached people are thinking the "on an iphone" is somehow new and never before seen. They've fallen prey to their own marketing ideology. What "big tech" is doing is not new it's the same game that companies have been doing since there have been companies. Common carrier status was always about not being party to messages of your users. Big tech is absolutely party to the messages of their users, even private ones. We all know it, they do it intentionally and even the stodgy old people on the supreme court can clearly see their game. If you're going to "control the narrative" by choosing what people see and what the don't, then you need to be responsible for what is displayed. This isn't and opt-in level of control there's not even an opt-out. They blatantly decide what the news is and feed it to you, no matter what you try and do to search around it. It has always blown my mind that google maps has no option to show all the points of interest no matter how far you zoom in. Just one tiny example of a service populated by users but then controlled by the machine. Be a common carrier or don't be. This manipulation game needs to end. I don't know what the court will do but hopefully provide guidelines on what common carrier is.

l33t233372 4y ago
How can you expect a service like Youtube to operate with “no” algorithm(the word “no” is in quotation marks because even a strictly chronological feed would be an algorithm)? You would actually prefer to get on Youtube and see the thousands of awful videos uploaded before the one that’s related to what you’ve recently watched?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  They might not be able to operate. That’s the point. In some cases, it might kill the service (and whether that’s desirable is going to be a function of your viewpoint).
  - l33t233372 4y ago
    Youtube is a great service and if the law will make it go away, we must change the law.
    - rnd0 4y ago
      That's highly debateable. From my point of view youtube is a disinformation vector which is far prone to indoctrinating people into extremist views because of the way the algorithm acts. From my point of view, I think that losing it would be a net win for society as a whole. I use youtube -daily. But I see it for what it is.
- elmerfud 4y ago
  No "algorithm" isn't no indexing method, try not to confuse the two things. I put algorithm in quotes because big tech is using an algorithm to force feed a narrative to people not just index content. See the maps example. Libraries seem to function just fine and people find things with indexing but without force feeding a narrative.
- foxyv 4y ago
  To be honest? Yeah! I would love to see curation by the users and content creators instead of YouTube itself. I wish I could sort my subscriptions into categories and just see the newest content from my subscriptions. I would love to organically discover new channels through suggestions by YouTube communities instead of a faceless algorithm optimized for advertiser friendliness. That's how YouTube started and it worked great. Now I have to fight the site to find content because it's been demonetized and YouTube won't suggest it anymore...
scott00 4y ago
This case has literally nothing to do with common carrier status. Neither side is claiming that Google or Twitter are common carriers.

freedude 4y ago

Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. This is a distraction and non-issue... “The court might think it's doing one thing and it's actually doing something very different,” said Evelyn Douek, a law professor at Stanford who specializes in tech law. “It’s ill-matched to the problem.” If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. The fact is Big Tech has dug its own grave long ago, and that should have been obvious since the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

jen20 4y ago
I broadly agree with you, but: > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason This might be true of appointed judges. It certainly is not true of elected ones.
thwayunion 4y ago
> Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. Certain types of promotion and downvoting are clearly within the legislative intent of Section 230. Suggestion may not be, and I am sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that recommendations -- and particularly push notifications and the like -- may not be covered by 230. (As always, it would be much better if the legislature simply did their damn job, but we seem to be content with permanent gridlock.) > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. I have no doubt that many in the legal field have this opinion -- particularly judges -- but you seem to be wildly under-estimating the degree of innumeracy on the bench. And, indeed, through most of the America's professional class. Most of the lawyers that I know haven't taken a mathematics course since high school, and one has never even taken a Calculus course (his college mathematics requirement was essentially a repeat of high school algebra). Neither of the judges I know are capable of even non-trivial computer use. Technological illiteracy really is an apt metaphor. Within the legal community, somehow, wanton ignorance of the very basics of human knowledge in various fields is considered a major deficit. But technological illiteracy is if anything a badge of pride and a sign of status. I have no doubt that these people are capable of understanding the technical details, but I'm also highly skeptical that they have the time for such an enormous undertaking given the typical state of numeracy and technical literacy on the bench.

remarkEon 4y ago

This Axios "article" does not mention the actual cases[1][2], so I'm left to trust that the two people in the by-line actually know what they're talking about. In case you don't like making those sorts of assumptions, here's the summary from scotusblog on the two cases. Oral argument is 21-22 FEB. >Issue: Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. >Issues: (1) Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and “regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use; and (2) whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl... [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-ta...

boh 4y ago

Tech isn't particularly complicated from a legal perspective especially in this case. Regardless of whatever algorithms or infrastructure being used to power it, Twitter and Google function mostly as media companies. Section 230 was put together in a completely different political and economic environment than what we have today--granting tech firms powers they would've unlikely been able to secure at any other time. If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand".

thwayunion 4y ago
I largely agree; the questions here are primarily legal, not technical, and a lot will boil down to legislative intent. As a technical person, I am actually sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that Section 230 may not necessarily protect recommendation systems designed for engagement maximization, and particularly not in the case of push notifications or the like. > If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand". The honest truth is that if they lose this case it will be because Big Tech pissed off conservatives. The court is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. If the courts don't pull out of the legitimacy tail-spin and return to a situation where at least issues of commerce are less politicized, the US may start facing some problems reminiscent of emerging markets with weaker rule of law/capital protections.
- boh 4y ago
  The "legitimacy" of the Supreme Court has always been in question, especially if they draw conclusions that people don't agree with. Law is subjective despite whatever fabulistic narratives that may suggest otherwise. That's why there's nine justices and not just one that makes "the" objective conclusion. There will be no crisis if the courts decide against whatever conclusions you feel are more legitimate.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    The unique/new concern is less about legitimacy in the political/culture war sense and more about investment risk. Companies like Disney and FAANGs getting caught in the middle of political battles is different in kind and, if it accelerates, will make the US a much riskier place to deploy capital.

ttt3ts 4y ago

Alright, given the volume of messages on FB, twitter, etc, isn't choosing what messages you promote approximately equivalent to publishing anything? I am pretty sure you can find any opinion/view on these platforms.