5 ms·

But the posts on HN are not re-ordered according to the user. It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. IMO the “threads” would

But the posts on HN are not re-ordered according to the user. It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. IMO the “threads” would fall under the exceptions of (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user Or maybe (g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source;

jcranmer 2y ago
> It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. The text is "recommended, selected, or prioritized", and the selective presence or absence of comments is, well, "selected". > (g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; This one I'm reasonably confident doesn't apply because it's worded so narrowly. First, there's "exclusively" which means any other factor being present causes this to fail to apply. Then there's "from the same author, creator, poster, or source"--the fact that threads are usually involving multiple authors means that the sequence doesn't come from the "same" author. > (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user What gives me pause here is I don't know what "specific search inquiry by the user" means. It feels to me like the drafter wants this to be interpreted in response to particular search terms (like posts containing "fuck" or something) and a bound like "threads involving me" isn't really a search term in that same sense. Stepping back a bit, the fundamental problem here is that this is a law that's being motivated by hatred of something that the author can't adequately describe. They came up with an overbroad definition that could encompass any activity they think might fall under that behavior, and when someone pointed out the absurdity of the definition, rather than trying to narrow down the definition, merely start patching it with exceptions for examples people thought of. (Well, it's possible it's drafted to try to make the law constitutional where every other attempt has been ruled unconstitutional, but quite frankly, none of this definition makes it more likely to be constitutional, so I doubt that anyone who is savvy enough to realize the constitutional pitfalls of writing this kind of law is dumb enough to think that this way will pass muster.)

jcranmer 2y ago

> It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. The text is "recommended, selected, or prioritized", and the selective presence or absence of comments is, well, "selected". > (g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; This one I'm reasonably confident doesn't apply because it's worded so narrowly. First, there's "exclusively" which means any other factor being present causes this to fail to apply. Then there's "from the same author, creator, poster, or source"--the fact that threads are usually involving multiple authors means that the sequence doesn't come from the "same" author. > (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user What gives me pause here is I don't know what "specific search inquiry by the user" means. It feels to me like the drafter wants this to be interpreted in response to particular search terms (like posts containing "fuck" or something) and a bound like "threads involving me" isn't really a search term in that same sense. Stepping back a bit, the fundamental problem here is that this is a law that's being motivated by hatred of something that the author can't adequately describe. They came up with an overbroad definition that could encompass any activity they think might fall under that behavior, and when someone pointed out the absurdity of the definition, rather than trying to narrow down the definition, merely start patching it with exceptions for examples people thought of. (Well, it's possible it's drafted to try to make the law constitutional where every other attempt has been ruled unconstitutional, but quite frankly, none of this definition makes it more likely to be constitutional, so I doubt that anyone who is savvy enough to realize the constitutional pitfalls of writing this kind of law is dumb enough to think that this way will pass muster.)