40 ms·
The OP's point is that since the case hinges on the question of whether social media platforms are "mere messageboards," or if they are, "products," the presenc
by whatshisface 3y ago
The OP's point is that since the case hinges on the question of whether social media platforms are "mere messageboards," or if they are, "products," the presence of hate content (like you'd find inside the telephone switching network) and the absence of any kind of algorithmic management is helpful to Nishimura, while the complex recommendation systems on YouTube will serve as an obstacle for that defendant.
- pierat 3y agoSo there definitely IS algorimithic removers and such. The difference is that posts don't even make it past the gate if they get blocked. And certain content is also ban-worthy. Again, they very much do censor stuff. You just don't see the censoring.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y agoModeration as censorship typically does not cater to, or curate content for, distinct individual users, let alone audience groups. There are of course exceptions but this is about a different extreme. This all started with ads. Now all content is an ad, so that you can be served more ads. It's ingenious but also evil.