4 ms·

Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of alg

Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of algorithmic content feeds - that is not protected by the first amendment. I'm not just talking about Tiktok either, this is the issue they should be legislating on, and it should target all social media companies. There is also legislation giving them to right to regulate foreign ownership of companies. It's scary how much of our stuff is owned by foreign governments. Seems like a national security risk.

aethros 3y ago
How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run. Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Algorithms aren't protected by the US Constitution, that's ridiculous. Point me to the single person who wrote the Facebook algorithm and I will change my opinion and protect its' speech. The press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Beyond that, commercial speech is not broadly protected. Megaphones, in general, are not free speech. And we know this. You cannot advertise cigarettes on TV, cities can ban billboards, and until recently, the law understood that donating millions of dollars to a politician is not a form a speech - it's a bribe (we'll have to work on that one). The press has a protected right to report. Even the press that are really thinly-veiled propaganda outlets get this protection. You have a protected right to speak in public and petition the government for redress without fear of reprisal. Social media and content algorithms are neither the press nor individual citizens, and they are not covered by the language or spirit of the first amendment.

aethros 3y ago

How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run. Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.

arrosenberg 3y ago
Algorithms aren't protected by the US Constitution, that's ridiculous. Point me to the single person who wrote the Facebook algorithm and I will change my opinion and protect its' speech. The press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Beyond that, commercial speech is not broadly protected. Megaphones, in general, are not free speech. And we know this. You cannot advertise cigarettes on TV, cities can ban billboards, and until recently, the law understood that donating millions of dollars to a politician is not a form a speech - it's a bribe (we'll have to work on that one). The press has a protected right to report. Even the press that are really thinly-veiled propaganda outlets get this protection. You have a protected right to speak in public and petition the government for redress without fear of reprisal. Social media and content algorithms are neither the press nor individual citizens, and they are not covered by the language or spirit of the first amendment.