4 ms·

>Discounting 1d, this means that virtually every website in existence qualifies as social media sites Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for exam

by scythe 3y ago

>Discounting 1d, this means that virtually every website in existence qualifies as social media sites Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for example. Traditional forums do not satisfy 1e. >1e is clearly meant to cover "algorithmic" recommendations, but it's worded so broadly that a feature that includes "threads you've commented on" would satisfy this prong. There could be some haggling over this, but I don't think that reading it in the least reasonable possible way is likely to fly in court. In particular, 1e stipulates "content offered". If "threads you've commented on" is content that the user has to request, e.g. by viewing a profile page or an inbox, that might not be considered "offering". It also says "control or target", but content with a simple bright-line definition like that is probably not controlled and certainly not targeted. >The fact that are well over a dozen exceptions carved out strongly suggests that the definition is anything but narrowly tailored >at least before you start applying exceptions. Yes, the definition is excessively broad if you ignore the majority of the text in the definition. This is a circular argument. >Actually, given that it's not covered by any of the exceptions, Wikipedia is a social media platform Exception 2m, shared document collaboration. But I don't think Wikipedia satisfies 1e either. >Blackboard (the software I had to use in school for all the online stuff at school) qualifies as a social media platform Probably qualifies under 2s or 2m. I'm not familiar enough with the platform to know if it satisfies 1e.

jcranmer 3y ago
> Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for example. Traditional forums do not satisfy 1e. Hacker News has a page that lets me see all of the replies from comments I've posted. Posting is clearly "activity of an account holder", and that means there is "at least part of the content" being "control[led]" by that activity. > If "threads you've commented on" is content that the user has to request, e.g. by viewing a profile page or an inbox, that might not be considered "offering". You're the one who's criticizing me for "least reasonable possible way", and you're trying to split hairs like this? (FWIW, an example that would qualify under your more restrictive definition is that the downvote button is not shown until you receive enough karma.) But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think, nor what I think, nor even what a court will think. What matters is how much it will constrain the government using this law to harass a website. And 1e isn't going to provide a barrier for that. > Yes, the definition is excessively broad if you ignore the majority of the text in the definition. This is a circular argument. No, it's not. The definition boils down to "everything on the internet is social media, except for these categories we've thought of" (or more likely, had lobbyists who pointed out that the definition included them and so we through them into the list of exceptions). That the majority of the text of the definition is a list of exceptions doesn't make it a narrow definition; indeed, it just highlights that the original definition sans exceptions is overly broad. > Probably qualifies under 2s or 2m Definitely not 2s, it's not "a classified ad service". I'm not sure there are any classified ad services are "used by or under the direction of an educational agency", but that's what you have to be to qualify under 2s. (This makes me think someone did a bad job of splicing in the exception, and the second half of 2s is supposed to be 2t. Just goes to show you the level of quality being displayed in the drafting of this bill, I suppose.)
- scythe 3y ago
  >Hacker News has a page that lets me see all of the replies from comments I've posted. Posting is clearly "activity of an account holder", and that means there is "at least part of the content" being "control[led]" by that activity. It doesn't say "control" by the activity, it says control by the platform. Control is a little bit difficult to define, but one reasonable necessary condition is that if someone is in control of something, then someone else might do it differently. "Show me threads I've commented on" should produce the same result regardless of platform. "Show me a random page" should at least have the same probability distribution. But "my recommendations" is fully under the platform's control. I grant that trying to interpret "offer" was a bit of a reach on my part. On the other hand, "control" can be interpreted in a pretty reasonable way to imply some form of meaningful choice. >You're the one who's criticizing me I'm not criticizing you, I'm criticizing your argument. It's important to keep a safe emotional distance in this kind of discussion. >it doesn't matter [...] even what a court will think. What matters is how much it will constrain the government using this law to harass a website. And 1e isn't going to provide a barrier for that. It certainly does matter what a court will think. Once a couple of precedents are set, it should be possible to identify what legal actions are meritless, and governments bringing frivolous suits may find themselves voted out of office. Unfairly targeted websites can bring a claim of malicious prosecution. Now, if you don't trust the voters and the courts, that's a different issue, but it's going to affect every law, good or bad. That's just how government works. >That the majority of the text of the definition is a list of exceptions doesn't make it a narrow definition; indeed, it just highlights that the original definition sans exceptions is overly broad. If we assume that ad targeting and algorithmic content recommendation are profitable, the original definition clearly constrains the ability of sites to make money while offering user accounts for minors. Lobbyists probably don't want profits constrained for their employers, even if the targeting aspects aren't necessary. But just because it targets features that can be added to every website, it isn't reasonable to say that it targets every website. Most of the Internet functions just fine without needing to create accounts, and when accounts are necessary, they're for buying stuff.

by scythe 3y ago

jcranmer 3y ago

> Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for example. Traditional forums do not satisfy 1e. Hacker News has a page that lets me see all of the replies from comments I've posted. Posting is clearly "activity of an account holder", and that means there is "at least part of the content" being "control[led]" by that activity. > If "threads you've commented on" is content that the user has to request, e.g. by viewing a profile page or an inbox, that might not be considered "offering". You're the one who's criticizing me for "least reasonable possible way", and you're trying to split hairs like this? (FWIW, an example that would qualify under your more restrictive definition is that the downvote button is not shown until you receive enough karma.) But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think, nor what I think, nor even what a court will think. What matters is how much it will constrain the government using this law to harass a website. And 1e isn't going to provide a barrier for that. > Yes, the definition is excessively broad if you ignore the majority of the text in the definition. This is a circular argument. No, it's not. The definition boils down to "everything on the internet is social media, except for these categories we've thought of" (or more likely, had lobbyists who pointed out that the definition included them and so we through them into the list of exceptions). That the majority of the text of the definition is a list of exceptions doesn't make it a narrow definition; indeed, it just highlights that the original definition sans exceptions is overly broad. > Probably qualifies under 2s or 2m Definitely not 2s, it's not "a classified ad service". I'm not sure there are any classified ad services are "used by or under the direction of an educational agency", but that's what you have to be to qualify under 2s. (This makes me think someone did a bad job of splicing in the exception, and the second half of 2s is supposed to be 2t. Just goes to show you the level of quality being displayed in the drafting of this bill, I suppose.)

scythe 3y ago
>Hacker News has a page that lets me see all of the replies from comments I've posted. Posting is clearly "activity of an account holder", and that means there is "at least part of the content" being "control[led]" by that activity. It doesn't say "control" by the activity, it says control by the platform. Control is a little bit difficult to define, but one reasonable necessary condition is that if someone is in control of something, then someone else might do it differently. "Show me threads I've commented on" should produce the same result regardless of platform. "Show me a random page" should at least have the same probability distribution. But "my recommendations" is fully under the platform's control. I grant that trying to interpret "offer" was a bit of a reach on my part. On the other hand, "control" can be interpreted in a pretty reasonable way to imply some form of meaningful choice. >You're the one who's criticizing me I'm not criticizing you, I'm criticizing your argument. It's important to keep a safe emotional distance in this kind of discussion. >it doesn't matter [...] even what a court will think. What matters is how much it will constrain the government using this law to harass a website. And 1e isn't going to provide a barrier for that. It certainly does matter what a court will think. Once a couple of precedents are set, it should be possible to identify what legal actions are meritless, and governments bringing frivolous suits may find themselves voted out of office. Unfairly targeted websites can bring a claim of malicious prosecution. Now, if you don't trust the voters and the courts, that's a different issue, but it's going to affect every law, good or bad. That's just how government works. >That the majority of the text of the definition is a list of exceptions doesn't make it a narrow definition; indeed, it just highlights that the original definition sans exceptions is overly broad. If we assume that ad targeting and algorithmic content recommendation are profitable, the original definition clearly constrains the ability of sites to make money while offering user accounts for minors. Lobbyists probably don't want profits constrained for their employers, even if the targeting aspects aren't necessary. But just because it targets features that can be added to every website, it isn't reasonable to say that it targets every website. Most of the Internet functions just fine without needing to create accounts, and when accounts are necessary, they're for buying stuff.