3 ms·

According to the article, it was a 2.5 hour hearing and we have just a few quotes chosen by the reporter/editor. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and s

According to the article, it was a 2.5 hour hearing and we have just a few quotes chosen by the reporter/editor. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are a good representation. I read the lawsuit (it's on the Supreme Court website). A lot of those questions relate to arguments being made by the plaintiff about how to let them win without destroying Section 230 entirely. So, this is my prediction: they will "win" because the Supreme Court is going to "clarify" the definition of terms in Section 230. It will not have much of any impact on sites like HN or Reddit, but Google/MS will have some real issues unless... They go all-in on LLMs. But they had better get them right, because those things have zero protection. Oh, and FB/Twitter are toast. Get ready, things will be interesting...

rossdavidh 4y ago
The Supreme Court normally does not like to be "interesting". It happens, occasionally, but normally only after (as with gay marriage or reversing Roe v. Wade) they telegraph it with hints in that direction for years first. Not to say it couldn't happen. But this is the branch of government least fond of getting attention.
Nevermark 4y ago
It is nice to imagine a huge successful social media site that charged a small monthly fee aggressively working to make people happy, instead of aggressively monetizing "engagement" with advertising. In the meantime, we have small sites making users happy in select areas. And massive site driving the world crazy whose business model is find the most addict-able content possible for every human being. I.e. creating a mental health issue is their goal.