4 ms·
It seems to me the difference in this case is that it complains about content promotion, not content publishing. The issue is that YouTube's algorithms promoted
by Veen 4y ago
It seems to me the difference in this case is that it complains about content promotion, not content publishing. The issue is that YouTube's algorithms promoted extremist content to people who were prone to extremist behavior. That's not quite the same as simply hosting extremist content uploaded by users.
As it says on the Supreme Court site:
"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."
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl...
- circuit10 4y agoHow could they fix that? If it was that easy to reliably identify illegal/extremist content and prevent it from being recommended they’d just take it down
- Zak 4y agoThe obvious options if targeted recommendations are found not to be protected is to only use them with curated content (Netflix) or not use them (reddit).
- circuit10 4y agoThat will completely destroy the experience of using YouTube for many people, the reason I like it is because I can see really niche content that has a really small target audience. With curated recommendations I wouldn't discover that type of thing at all, which would be bad for both me and the creators, and with no recommendations it would be even harder to find it. Reddit does target recommendations, by the way, though maybe it's just based on what subreddits you joined so maybe that isn't the same thing as the user chose to receive it (I'm not trying to imply that YouTube should work how specially I want it to, just using myself as an example of what I think many people use it for)
- eli 4y agoGoogle decides what emails go in the gmail inbox vs spam folder vs rejected outright. Should they be legally responsible if an offensive email lands in your inbox?
- prepend 4y agoI don’t think spam filtering is promoting content as it is removing material. I think they would be liable if they took emails that weren’t addressed to you and showed them in your inbox and it did some harm. Or if they showed an ad that did some harm.
- eli 4y agoI would challenge you to craft a legal opinion around 230 that excludes Youtube recommending harmful content from protection but not Google placing harmful content in the "Priority Inbox".
- freejazz 4y agoThere isn't difficulty there. Lawyers aren't having problems navigating this language. Obtuse techies who obsess over edge-cases definitions are having difficulty. No one reasonable would describe the SPAM filtering as a recommendation algorithm and to suggest otherwise is either outright ignorant or just facially disingenuous. The law doesn't care what can be argued to be a promotion algorithm based upon some HN-poster's obtuse reliance upon a specific word, the law deals with reasonability as a standard all the time.
- eli 4y agoNavigating what language? The law today I agree is pretty clear. This is speculation on a ruling that doesn't yet exist that could change all that. Your suggestion is that there would be a carve out for spam filtering? Or that Google deciding what goes in "Promotions" and what goes in "Priority Inbox" isn't a recommendation?
- 4y ago