22 ms·

Judges rule Big Tech's free ride on Section 230 is over

• Devasta 2y ago
  This could result in the total destruction of social media sites. Facebook, TikTok, Youtube, Twitter, hell even Linkedin cannot possibly survive if they have to take responsibility for what users post. Excellent news, frankly.
  • darig 2y ago
    [dead]
  • thephyber 2y ago
    I don’t understand how people can be so confident that this will only lead to good things. First, this seems like courts directly overruling the explicit wishes of Congress. As much as Congress critters complain about DCA Sec230, they can’t agree on any improvements. Judges throwing a wrench at it won’t improve it, they will only cause more uncertainty. not liking what social media has done to people doesn’t seem like a good reason to potentially destroy the entire corpus of videos created on YouTube.
    • gizmo686 2y ago
      Congress did not anticipate the type of algorithmic curation that the modern internet is built on. At the time, if you were to hire someone to create a daily list of suggested reading, that list would not be subject to 230 protections. However, with the rise of algorithmic media, that is precisely what modern social media companies have been doing.
      • rtkwe 2y ago
        Congress has had ample opportunity to pass changes since the rise of algorithmic feeds too though and they haven't done so.
      • thephyber 2y ago
        I can make a decent argument that even offering a basic “sort by” dropdown, where the platform sets a _default_ sort, classifies it as an “algorithm”. I’m arguing that judges shouldn’t be tearing down the existing legal regime without someone actively planning for a replacement that doesn’t have massive _unintended consequences_ (which all of the proposed Sec 230 reforms have) And the fact that you only mentioned “modern social media companies” means that you are also underestimating which offerings qualify. Sec 230 protects all websites and apps that show _any_ user content to other users, not just the large social media companies. Think review sites, online classifieds, your group chat in a Messenger app, blog comments, social recipe sites, shared bookmarking sites, the “memo” field of transactions in every blockchain, etc. And the obvious worry I have is that new jurisprudence starts pulling Jenga pieces away from AI chatbots before Congress even decides whether those qualify as a platform, a publisher, or something completely different.
    • Devasta 2y ago
      Well, if we consider the various social media sites: Meta - Helped facilitate multiple ethnic cleansings. Twitter - Now a site run by white supremacists for white supremacists. Youtube - Provides platforms to Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and a whole constellation of conspiracy theorist nonsense. Reddit - Initially grew its userbase through hosting of softcore CP, one of the biggest pro-ana sites on the web and a myriad of smaller but no less vile subreddits. Even if they try to put on a respectable mask now its still a cesspit. Linkedin - Somehow has the least well adjusted userbase of them all, its destruction would do its users a kindness. My opinion of social media goes far and beyond what anyone could consider "not liking". In any case, it would mean that those videos would have to be self hosted and published, we'd see an en masse return of websites like college humor and cracked and the like, albeit without the comments switched on.
      • falcolas 2y ago
        YouTube and Facebook were also the original hosts of the Blackout trend videos and pictures, as I recall.
      • thephyber 2y ago
        Baby. Bath water. You are arguing that mega social media companies should not be immune from liability. I could care less about those companies, but I do care about the unintended consequences of this ruling. The mega social media companies weren’t immune from liability before the ruling. But they are mega corporations, with lots of attorneys on retainer who craft the ToS / EULA / other contracts to shed legal risk. Even this ruling isn’t likely to hurt them much in the long run. The “baby” is every small blog that allows comments, every store / product review, every social bookmarking site, every game with multi-player chat, etc. These are examples of features available because of Sec230 protections. If some enterprising attorney can spin the _default sort order_ into a statistically significant harm to their plaintiff, every single website/app just became a far bigger target for litigation. And even if they can’t, now every mom and pop website will have to pay an attorney to find out if the plaintiff has a case according to this new vague standard. And this happened because of a judge / jurisprudence, not because of a lawmaking body who solicited feedback from both companies and consumers. This ruling is likely to stand no matter the legal / / social economic fallout. Craigslist already lost the Personals section to Sec230-modifying legislation. That was a drop in the bucket compared to what we could lose from this ruling.
    • bryanlarsen 2y ago
      No, 230 is not overturned. The original video is still the original poster's comment, and thus still 230 protected. If the kid searched specifically for the video and found it, TikTok would have been safe. However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710
      • falcolas 2y ago
        If the child hears the term "blackout" and searches for it on TikTok and reaches the same video, is that TikTok's speech - fault - as well? TikTok used an algorithm to sort search results, after all.
        • preciousoo 2y ago
          I think the third sentence of the comment you’re replying to answers that
          • falcolas 2y ago
            So you believe that presenting the results (especially if you filter on something like 'relevance') of a search now makes the website liable? That's going to be hell for Google. Well, maybe not, they have many and decent lawyers.
            • preciousoo 2y ago
              I’m not sure you read the sentence in question correctly
              • falcolas 2y ago
                > However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. How is my interpretation incorrect, please? TikTok (or any other website like Google) can show a video to a child in any number of ways - all of which could be considered to be their speech.
    • karaterobot 2y ago
      The person you're responding to didn't say they were confident about anything, they said (cynically, it seems to me) that it could lead to the end of many social media sites, and that'd be a good thing in their opinion. This is a pedantic thing to point out, but I do it because the comment has been downvoted, and the top response to it seems to misunderstand it, so it's possible others did too.
      • thephyber 2y ago
        I’m pretty sure I didn’t misunderstand the parent comment. I just didn’t choose to address only that comment in my reply — I spun my reply in the context of all of the previous discussions about Sec230 reform — because that’s the underlying worry that I have. I could care less if the biggest social media companies die off, but I _do_ worry about all of the other unintended consequences of this ruling (more accurately, changing the definition of “speech” to include something that is so far removed from direct and intentional).
  • Mistletoe 2y ago
    The return of the self hosted blog type internet where we go to more than 7 websites? One can dream. Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to.
    • falcolas 2y ago
      Nah, ISPs (and webhosts) are protected by Section 230 as well, and they're likely to drift into the lawyer's sights as well - intentionally or unintentionally.
    • krapp 2y ago
      >Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to. I remember the internet pre social media but I don't exactly remember it being filled with the sparkling wit of genius. The internet is supposed to belong to everyone, it wasn't meant to be a playground only for a few nerds. It's really sad that hacker culture has gotten this angry and elitist. It means no one will ever create anything with as much egalitarian potential as the internet again.
  • bentley 2y ago
    But it’s more likely to go the other way around: the big sites with their expensive legal teams will learn how to thread the needle to remain compliant with the law, probably by oppressively moderating and restricting user content even more than they already do, while hosting independent sites and forums with any sort of user‐submitted content will become completely untenable due to the hammer of liability.
  • WCSTombs 2y ago
    There's nothing in the article about making the social media sites liable for what their users post. However, they're made liable for how they recommend content to their users, at least in certain cases.
  • krapp 2y ago
    Negative externalities aside, social media has been the most revolutionary and transformative paradigm shift in mass communication and culture since possibly the invention of the telegraph. Yes something that provides real value to many people would be lost if all of that were torn asunder.
    • skydhash 2y ago
      You're missing radio and TV. Social media is mostly giving everyone a megaphone and the platform the one in control of the volume.
  • mikewarot 2y ago
    What is likely to happen is that Government will lean on "friendly" platforms that cooperate in order to do political things that should be illegal, in exchange for looking the other way on things the government should stop. This is the conclusion I came to after watching Bryan Lunduke's reporting on the recent telegram arrest.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8
• tboyd47 2y ago
  Fantastic write-up. The author appears to be making more than a few assumptions about how this will play out, but I share his enthusiasm for the end of the "lawless no-man’s-land" (as he put it) era of the internet. It comes at a great time too, as we're all eagerly awaiting the AI-generated content apocalypse. Just switch one apocalypse for a kinder, more human-friendly one. > So what happens going forward? Well we’re going to have to start thinking about what a world without this expansive reading of Section 230 looks like. There was an internet before the CDA. From what I remember, it was actually pretty rad. There can be an internet after, too. Who knows what it would look like. Maybe it will be a lot less crowded, less toxic, less triggering, and less addictive without these gigantic megacorps spending buku dollars to light up our amygdalas with nonsense all day.
  • tboyd47 2y ago
    I read the decision. -> https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.pdf?ts=1724792413 https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-306... Judge Matey's basic point of contention is that Section 230 does not provide immunity for any of TikTok's actions except "hosting" the blackout challenge video on its server. Defining it in this way may lead to a tricky technical problem for the courts to solve... While working in web, I understand "hosting" to mean the act of storing files on a computer somewhere. That's it. Is that how the courts will understand it? Or does their definition of hosting include acts that I would call serving, caching, indexing, linking, formatting, and rendering? If publishers are liable for even some of those acts, then this takes us to a very different place from where we were in 1995. Interesting times ahead for the industry.
    • itsdrewmiller 2y ago
      You're reading it too literally here - the CDA applies to: >(2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
• chucke1992 2y ago
  So basically closer and closer to governmental control over social networks. Seems like a global trend everywhere. Governments will define the rules by which communication services (and social networks) should operate.
  • whatshisface 2y ago
    Given that the alternative was public control over governments, I guess it's inevitable that this would become a worldwide civil rights battle.
    • zerodensity 2y ago
      What does public control over governments mean?
      • whatshisface 2y ago
        It means that the process of assimilating new information, coming to conclusions, and deciding what a nation should do is carried out in the minds of the public, not in the offices of relatively small groups who decide what they want the government to do, figure out what conclusions would support it, and then make sure the public only assimilates information that would lead them to such conclusions.
  • titusjohnson 2y ago
    Is it really adding governmental control, or is it removing a governmental control? From my perspective Section 280 was controlling me, a private citizen, by saying "you cannot touch these entities"
  • passwordoops 2y ago
    How is an elected government with checks and balances worse than a faceless corporation?
    • genocidicbunny 2y ago
• octopoc 2y ago
  > In other words, the fundamental issue here is not really whether big tech platforms should be regulated as speakers, as that’s a misconception of what they do. They don’t speak, they are middlemen. And hopefully, we will follow the logic of Matey’s opinion, and start to see the policy problem as what to do about that. This is a pretty good take, and it relies on pre-Internet legal concepts like distributor and producer. There's this idea that our legal / governmental structures are not designed to handle the Internet age and therefore need to be revamped, but this is a counterexample that is both relevant and significant.
  • postalrat 2y ago
    They are more than middlemen when they are very carefully choosing what content each person sees or doesn't see.
• falcolas 2y ago
  > the internet grew tremendously, encompassing the kinds of activities that did not exist in 1996 I guess that's one way to say that you never experienced the early internet. In three words: rotten dot com. Makes all the N-chans look like teenagers smoking on the corner, and Facebook et.al. look like toddlers in paddded cribs. This will frankly hurt any and all attempts to host any content online, and if anyone can survive it, it will be the biggest corporations alone. Section 230 also protected ISPs and hosting companies (linode, Hetzer, etc) after all. Their targeting may not be intentional, but will that matter? Are they willing to be jailed in a foreign country because of their perceived inaction?
  • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Jail? This was a civil suit, no criminal penalties apply, just monetary.
    • falcolas 2y ago
      Thanks to "Contempt of Court" anybody can go to jail, even if they're not found liable for the presented case. But more on point, we're discussing modification of how laws are interpreted. If someone can be held civilly liable, why can't they be held criminally liable if the "recommended" content breaks criminal laws (CSAM, for example)? There's nothing that prevents this interpretation from being considered in a criminal case.
      • hn_acker 2y ago
        Section 230 already doesn't apply to content that breaks federal criminal liability, so CSAM is already exempted. Certain third-party liability cases will still be protected by the First Amendment (no third-party liability without knowledge of CSAM, for example) but won't be dismissed early by Section 230.
  • stackskipton 2y ago
    This was purely about was "Is using algorithms made you a publisher?", this judge ruled yes and therefore, no Section 230. The Judge made no ruling on Section 230 protection for anyone who truly just hosts the content so ISPs/Hosting Companies should be fine.
• hello_computer 2y ago
  This is a typical anglosphere move: Write another holy checklist (I mean, "Great Charter"), indoctrinate the plebes into thinking that they were made free because of it (they weren't), then as soon as one of the bulleted items leaves the regime's hiney exposed, have the "judges" conjure a new interpretation out of thin-air for as long as they think the threat persists. Whether it was Eugene Debs being thrown in the pokey, or every Japanese civilian on the west coast, or some harmless muslim suburbanite getting waterboarded, nothing ever changes. Wake me up when they actually do something to Facebook.
• WCSTombs 2y ago
  From the article: > Because TikTok’s “algorithm curates and recommends a tailored compilation of videos for a user’s FYP based on a variety of factors, including the user’s age and other demographics, online interactions, and other metadata,” it becomes TikTok’s own speech. And now TikTok has to answer for it in court. Basically, the court ruled that when a company is choosing what to show kids and elderly parents, and seeks to keep them addicted to sell more ads, they can’t pretend it’s everyone else’s fault when the inevitable horrible thing happens. If that reading is correct, then Section 230 isn't nullified, but there's something that isn't shielded from liability any more, which IIUC is basically the "Recommended For You"-type content feed curation algorithms. But I haven't read the ruling itself, so it could potentially be more expansive than that. But assuming Matt Stoller's analysis there is accurate: frankly, I avoid those recommendation systems like the plague anyway, so if the platforms have to roll them back or at least be a little more thoughtful about how they're implemented, it's not necessarily a bad thing. There's no new liability for what users post (which is good overall IMO), but there can be liability for the platform implementation itself in some cases. But I think we'll have to see how this plays out.
  • falcolas 2y ago
    What is "recommended for you" if not a search result with no terms? From a practical point of view, unless you go the route of OnlyFans and disallow discovery on your own website, how do you allow any discovery if any form of algorithmic recommendation is outlawed?
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      If it were the results of a search with no terms then it wouldn't be "for" a given subject. The "you" in "recommended for you" is the search term.
      • falcolas 2y ago
        That's just branding. It's called Home in Facebook and Instagram, and it's the exact same thing. It's a form of discovery that's tailored to the user, just like normal searches are (even on Google and Bing etc).
• mikewarot 2y ago
  >There is no way to run a targeted ad social media company with 40% margins if you have to make sure children aren’t harmed by your product. So, we actually have to watch out for kids, and maybe only have a 25% profit margin? Oh, so terrible! /s I'm 100% against the political use of censorship, but 100% for the reasonable use of government to promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves, and our posterity.
  • FireBeyond 2y ago
    Right? I missed the part where a business is "entitled" to that. There was a really good quote I've never been able to find again, along the lines of "just because a business has always done things a certain way, doesn't mean they are exempt from changes".
    • turol 2y ago
      "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." Robert Heinlein in "Life-Line"
      • FireBeyond 2y ago
        Wow. Thank you. I saw this years ago, and despite my best efforts, I could never find it again! Thank you.
• mjevans 2y ago
  """The Court held that a platform's algorithm that reflects "editorial judgments" about "compiling the third-party speech it wants in the way it wants" is the platform's own "expressive product" and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. Given the Supreme Court's observations that platforms engage in protected first-party speech under the First Amendment when they curate compilations of others' content via their expressive algorithms, it follows that doing so amounts to first-party speech under Section 230, too.""" I've agreed for years. It's a choice in selection rather than a 'natural consequence' such as a chronological, threaded, or even '__end user__ upvoted /moderated' (outside the site's control) weighted sort.
  • bentley 2y ago
    If I as a forum administrator delete posts by obvious spambots, am I making an editorial judgment that makes me legally liable for every single post I don’t delete? If my forum has a narrow scope (say, 4×4 offroading), and I delete a post that’s obviously by a human but is seriously off‐topic (say, U.S. politics), does that make me legally liable for every single post I don’t delete? What are the limits here, for those of us who unlike silicon valley corporations, don’t have massive legal teams?
    • WCSTombs 2y ago
      > If my forum has a narrow scope (say, 4×4 offroading), and I delete a post that’s obviously by a human but is seriously off‐topic (say, U.S. politics), does that make me legally liable for every single post I don’t delete? According to the article, probably not: > A platform is not liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” "Otherwise objectionable" looks like a catch-all phrase to allow content moderation generally, but I could be misreading it here.
    • doe_eyes 2y ago
      I think you're looking for the kind of precision that just doesn't exist in the legal system. It will almost certainly hinge on intent and the extent to which your actions actually stifle legitimate speech. I imagine that getting rid of spam wouldn't meet the bar, and neither would enforcing that conversations are on-topic. But if you're removing and demoting posts because they express views you disagree with, you're implicitly endorsing the opinions expressed in the posts you allow to stay up, and therefore are exercising editorial control. I think the lesson here is: either keep your communities small so that you can comfortably reason about the content that's up there, or don't play the thought police. The only weird aspect of this is that you have courts saying one thing, but then the government breathing down your neck and demanding that you go after misinformation.
• nness 2y ago
  > Because TikTok’s “algorithm curates and recommends a tailored compilation of videos for a user’s FYP based on a variety of factors, including the user’s age and other demographics, online interactions, and other metadata,” it becomes TikTok’s own speech. This is fascinating and raises some interesting questions about where the liability starts and stops i.e. is "trending/top right now/posts from following" the same as a tailored algorithm per user? Does Amazon become culpable for products on their marketplace? etc. For good or for bad, this century's Silicon Valley was built on Section 230 and I don't foresee it disappearing any time soon. If anything, I suspect it will be supported by future/refined by legislation instead of removed. No one wants to be the person who legisliate away all online services...
• renewiltord 2y ago
  If I spam filter comments am I subject to this? That is, the remaining comments are effectively like I was saying them?
  • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    No. Section 230 protects you if you remove objectionable content. This is about deciding which content to show to each individual user. If all your users get the same content, you should be fine.
    • renewiltord 2y ago
      I see. Thanks! If they can customize the feed, does that make it their speech or my speech? Like if I give them a "subscribe to x communities" thing with "hide already visited". It'll be a different feed, and algorithmic (I suppose) but user controlled. I imagine if you have explicitly ask the user "what topics" and then use a program to determine which topic then it's a problem. I've got a WIP mastodon client that uses a llama3 to follow topics. I suppose that's not releasable.
• nsagent 2y ago
  The current comments seem to say this is rings the death knell of social media and that this just leads to government censorship. I'm not so sure. I think the ultimate problem is that social media is not unbiased — it curates what people are shown. In that role they are no longer an impartial party merely hosting content. It seems this ruling is saying that the curation being algorithmic does not absolve the companies from liability. In a very general sense, this ruling could be seen as a form of net neutrality. Currently social media platforms favor certain content, while down weighting others. Sure, it might be at a different level than peer agreements between ISPs and websites, but it amounts to a similar phenomenon when most people interact on social media through the feed. Honestly, I think I'd love to see what changes this ruling brings about. HN is quite literally the only social media site (loosely interpreted) I even have an account on anymore, mainly because of how truly awful all the sites have become. Maybe this will make social media more palatable again? Maybe not, but I'm inclined to see what shakes out.
  • WCSTombs 2y ago
    Yeah, pretty much. What's not clear to me though is how non-targeted content curation, like simply "trending videos" or "related videos" on YouTube, is impacted. IMO that's not nearly as problematic and can be useful.
  • whatshisface 2y ago
    The diverse biases of newspapers or social media sites are preferable to the monolithic bias a legal solution will impress.
    • nick238 2y ago
      So the solution is "more speech?" I don't know how that will unhook minors from the feedback loop of recommendation algorithms and their plastic brains. It's like saying 'we don't need to put laws in place to combat heroin use, those people could go enjoy a good book instead!'.
      • nostrademons 2y ago
• deafpolygon 2y ago
  Section 230 is alive and well, and this ruling won't impact it. What will change is that US social media firms will move away from certain types of algorithmic recommendations. Tiktok is owned by Bytedance which is a Chinese firm, so in the long run - no real impact.
• seydor 2y ago
  The ruling itself says that this is not about 230, it's about TikTok's curation and collation of the specific videos. TikTok is not held liable for the user content but for the part that they do their 'for you' section. I guess it makes sense, manipulating people is not OK whether it's for political purposes as facebook and twitter do, or whatever. So 230 is not over It would be nice to see those 'For you' and youtube's recomendations gone. Chronological timelines are the best , and will bring back some sanity. Don't like it? don't follow it > Accordingly, TikTok’s algorithm, which recommended the Blackout Challenge to Nylah on her FYP, was TikTok’s own “expressive activity,” id., and thus its first-party speech. > > Section 230 immunizes only information “provided by another[,]” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and here, because the information that forms the basis of Anderson’s lawsuit—i.e., TikTok’s recommendations via its FYP algorithm—is TikTok’s own expressive activity, § 230 does not bar Anderson’s claims.
  • falcolas 2y ago
    > Don't like it? don't follow it How did you find it in the first place? A search? Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people), all you'll see is pages and pages of SEO. Opening up liability like this is a quagmire that's not going to do good things for the internet.
    • BlueTemplar 2y ago
      You're getting off topic here though ? «Had Nylah viewed a Blackout Challenge video through TikTok’s search function, rather than through her FYP, then TikTok may be viewed more like a repository of third-party content than an affirmative promoter of such content.»
    • pixl97 2y ago
      >not going to do good things for the internet. Not sure if you've noticed, but the internet seemingly ran out of good things quite some time back.
      • falcolas 2y ago
• Xcelerate 2y ago
  I'm not at all opposed to implementing new laws that society believes will reduce harm to online users (particularly children). However, if Section 230 is on its way out, won't this just benefit the largest tech companies that already have massive legal resources and the ability to afford ML-based or manual content moderation? The barriers to entry into the market for startups will become insurmountable. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it sounds like the existing companies essentially got a free pass with regard to liability of user-provided content and had plenty of time to grow, and now the government is pulling the ladder up after them.
  • tboyd47 2y ago
    The assertion made by the author is that the way these companies grew is only sustainable in the current legal environment. So the advantage they have right now by being bigger is nullified.
    • xboxnolifes 2y ago
      Yes, the way they grew is only sustainable from the current. What about not growing, but maintaining?
      • lelandbatey 2y ago
        The parent said "grew", but I think a closer reading of the article indicates a more robust idea that tboyd47 merely misrepresented. A better sentence is potentially: are able to profit to the tune of a 40% margin on advertising revenue With that, they're saying that they're only going to be able to profit this much in this current regulatory environment. If that goes away, so too does much of their margin, potentially all of it. That's a big blow no matter the size, though Facebook may weather it better than smaller competitors.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > won't this just benefit the largest tech companies I'd wager the bigger you are the harder it gets. How would they fend off tens of thousands of simultaneous lawsuits?
• oldgregg 2y ago
  Insane reframing. Big tech and politicians are pushing this, pulling the ladder up behind them-- X and new decentralized networks are a threat to their hegemony and this is who they are going after. Startups will not be able to afford whatever bullshit regulatory framework they force feed us. How about they mandate any social network over 10M MAU has to publish their content algorithms.. ha!
• jrockway 2y ago
  I'm not sure that Big Tech is over. Media companies have had a viable business forever. What happens here is that instead of going to social media and hearing about how to fight insurance companies, you'll just get NFL Wednesday Night Football Presented By TikTok.
• tomcam 2y ago
  Have to assume dang is moderating his exhausted butt off, because the discussion on this page is vibrant and courteous. Thanks all!
  • itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    I agree, and for that reason I will be suing Hacker News in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, or the Virgin Islands.
• delichon 2y ago
  TikTok, Inc., via its algorithm, recommended and promoted videos posted by third parties to ten-year-old Nylah Anderson on her uniquely curated “For You Page.” One video depicted the “Blackout Challenge,” which encourages viewers to record themselves engaging in acts of self-asphyxiation. After watching the video, Nylah attempted the conduct depicted in the challenge and unintentionally hanged herself. -- https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.pdf?ts=1724792413 An algorithm accidentally enticed a child to hang herself. I've got code running on dozens of websites that recommends articles to read based on user demographics. There's nothing in that code that would or could prevent an article about self-asphyxiation being recommended to a child. It just depends on the clients that use the software not posting that kind of content, people with similar demographics to the child not reading it, and a child who gets the recommendation not reading it and acting it out. If those assumptions fail should I or my employer be liable?
  • discardedrefuse 2y ago
    Isn't it usually the case that when someone builds a shitty thing and people get hurt, the builder is liable?
    • ineedaj0b 2y ago
      Yeah, but buying a hammer and hitting yourself with it is different. The dangers of social media are unknown to most still.
      • discardedrefuse 2y ago
        Yes. Buying a hammer and hitting yourself with it IS different.
      • spacemadness 2y ago
        Yes, because a mechanical tool made of solid metal is the same thing as software that can change its behavior at any time and is controlled live by some company with its own motives.
      • 2y ago
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Fantastic! If I had three wishes, one of them might be to repeal Section 230.
• dwallin 2y ago
  The link to the actual decision: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.pdf?ts=1724792413 https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-306...
• nitwit005 2y ago
  I am puzzled why there are no arrests in this sort of case. Surely, convincing kids to kill themselves is a form of homicide?
• Animats 2y ago
  This turns on what TikTok "knew": "But by the time Nylah viewed these videos, TikTok knew that: 1) “the deadly Blackout Challenge was spreading through its app,” 2) “its algorithm was specifically feeding the Blackout Challenge to children,” and 3) several children had died while attempting the Blackout Challenge after viewing videos of the Challenge on their For You Pages. App. 31–32. Yet TikTok “took no and/or completely inadequate action to extinguish and prevent the spread of the Blackout Challenge and specifically to prevent the Blackout Challenge from being shown to children on their [For You Pages].” App. 32–33. Instead, TikTok continued to recommend these videos to children like Nylah." We need to see another document, "App 31-32", to see what TikTok "knew". Could someone find that, please? A Pacer account may be required. Did they ignore an abuse report? See also Gonzales vs. Google (2023), where a similar issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court.[1] That was about whether recommending videos which encouraged the viewer to support the Islamic State's jihad led someone to go fight in it, where they were killed. The Court rejected the terrorism claim and declined to address the Section 230 claim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Google_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Google_LLC
  • Scaevolus 2y ago
    IIRC, TikTok has (had?) a relatively high-touch content moderation pipeline, where any video receiving more than a few thousand views is checked by a human reviewer. Their review process was developed to hit the much more stringent speech standards of the Chinese market, but it opens them up to even more liability here. I unfortunately can't find the source articles for this any more, they're buried under "how to make your video go viral" flowcharts that elide the "when things get banned" decisions.
    • Izkata 2y ago
      > Their review process was developed to hit the much more stringent speech standards of the Chinese market TikTok isn't available in China. They have a separate app called Douyin.
      • janalsncm 2y ago
• drpossum 2y ago
  I hope this makes certain streaming platforms liable for the things certain podcast hosts say while they shovel money at and promote them above other content.
  • itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    I am guessing this is about spotify and joe rogan - they would have a pretty tough time pleading section 230 for content they fully sponsor and exclusively publish, with or without the decision in question.
• blueflow 2y ago
  Might be a cultural difference (im not from the US), but leaving a 10 year unsupervised with content from (potentially malicious) strangers really throws me off. Wouldn't this be the perfect precedence case on why minors should not be allowed on social media?
  • hyeonwho4 2y ago
    I am also a little confused by this. I thought websites were not allowed to collect data from minors under 13 years of age, and that TikTok doesn't allow minors under 13 to create accounts. Why is TikTok not liable for personalizing content to minors? Apparently (from the court filings) TikTok even knew these videos were going viral among children... which should increase their liability under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
    • ratorx 2y ago
      Assuming TikTok collect age, and the minimum possible age is 13 (ToS) and a parent lets their child access the app despite that, I don’t see how TikTok is liable. Also, I’m not sure how TikTok would know that the videos are viral among the protected demographic if the protected demographic cannot even put in the information to classify them as such? I don’t think requiring moderation is the answer in all cases. As an adult, I should be allowed to consume unmoderated content. Should people younger than 18 be allowed to? Maybe. I agree that below age X, all content should be moderated. If you choose not to do this for your platform, then age-restrict the content. However, historically age-restriction on the internet is an unsolved problem. I think what would be useful is tighter legislation on how this is enforced etc. This case is not a moderation question. It is a liability question, because a minor has been granted access to age-restricted content. I think the key question is whether TikTok should be liable for the child/their parents having bypassed the age restriction (too easily)? Maybe. I’m leaning towards the opinion that a large amount of this responsibility is on the parents. If this is onerous, then the law should legislate stricter guidelines on content targeting the protected demographic as well as the gates blocking them.
  • Yeul 2y ago
    Look your kids are going to discover all kinds of nasty things online or offline so either you prepare them for it or it's going to be like that scene in Stephen King's Carrie.
• carapace 2y ago
  Moderation doesn't scale, it's NP-complete or worse. Massive social networks sans moderation cannot work and cannot be made to work. Social networks require that the moderation system is a super-set of the communication system and that's not cost effective (except where the two are co-extensive, e.g. Wikipedia, Hacker News, Fediverse.) We tried it because of ignorance (in the first place) and greed (subsequently). This ruling is just recognizing reality.
  • LargeWu 2y ago
    This isn't a question of moderation. It's about recommendation.
    • carapace 2y ago
      Recommendation is a form of moderation?
      • LargeWu 2y ago
        No. Moderation is about allowing objectionable content at all (or at the very least putting up roadblocks to passive consumption). It's different from allowing objectionable content, letting users seek it out but not promoting it. And it's yet another thing than not only allowing it, but also proactively putting it in front of somebody's eyeballs.
        • carapace 2y ago
          Seems like semantic quibbles to me, but then we're talking about law and computers... The distinction between "conduit" and "publisher" seems compelling to me. Once a company has pierced the veil and looked at the content of the messages they transmit to me it doesn't really matter how they are modifying the stream they still should be liable for what they transmit. E.g. if someone uses Twitter to send 12-year actress Jenna Ortega a photograph of a penis then Twitter should be liable for aiding and abetting child abuse. (In my opinion.)
• BurningFrog 2y ago
  Surely this will bubble up to the Supreme Court? Once they've weighed in, we'll know if the "free ride" really is over, and if so what ride replaces it.
  • barryrandall 2y ago
    I think there are a few very interesting ways this could play out. Option 1: ByteDance appeals, loses, and the ruling stands Option 2: ByteDance appeals, wins, and the ruling is overturned Option 3: ByteDance doesn’t appeal, the ruling stands, and nobody has standing to appeal the ruling without bringing a new case.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I love this. Court: Social Media algos are protected speech Social Media: Yes! Protect us Court: Since you're speech you must be liable for harmful speech as anyone else would be Social Media: No!!
  • srackey 2y ago
    Ah yes “social media bad”. Lemme guess, “Orange man bad” too? You’re cheering on expansion of government power and the end of the free internet as we know it.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      I'm not cheering the end of the free internet, I strongly believe that the web will adapt and be better off. > You’re cheering on expansion of government power More like a shrinking of megacorp tech giant power.
• stainablesteel 2y ago
  tiktok in general is great at targeting young women the chinese and iranians are taking advantage of this and thats not something i would want to entrust to them
• 6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago
  So under this new reading of the law, is it saying that AWS is still not liable for what someone says on reddit, but now reddit might be responsible for it?
• jmyeet 2y ago
  What I want to sink in for people that whenever people talk about an "algorithm", they're regurgitating propaganda specifically designed to absolve the purveyor of responsibility for anything that algorithm does. An algorithm in this context is nothing more than a reflection of what all the humans who created it designed it to do. In this case, it's to deny Medicaid to make money. For RealPage, it's to drive up rents for profit. Health insurance companies are using "AI" to deny claims and prior authorizations, forcing claimants to go through more hoops to get their coverage. Why? Because the extra hoops will discourage a certain percentage. All of these systems come down to a waterfall of steps you need to go through. Good design will remove steps to increase the pass rate. Intentional bad design will add steps and/or lower the pass rate. Example: in the early days of e-commerce, you had to create an account before you could shop. Someone (probably Amazon) realized they lost customers this way. The result? You could create a shopping cart all you want and you didn't have to create an account unti lyou checked out. At this point you're already invested. The overall conversion rate is higher. Even later, registration itself became optional. Additionally, these big consulting companies are nothing more than leeches designed to drain the public purse
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I like it. What would be a better word than algorithm then? Design? Product? TikTok's design presented harmful information to a minor resulting in her death. TikTok's product presented harmful information to a minor resulting in her death.
• hnburnsy 2y ago
  To me this decision doesn't feel it is demolishing 230, but reducing its scope, a scope that was exanded by other court decisions. Per the article 230 said not liable for user content and not liable for restricting content. This case is about liability for reinforcing content. Would love to have a timeline only, non reinforcing content feed.
• kevwil 2y ago
  Whatever this means, I hope it means less censorship. That's all my feeble brain can focus on here: free speech good, censorship bad. :)
  • EasyMark 2y ago
    This judge supports censorship and not free speech, it a tendency of the current generation of judges populating the court. They prefer government control over personal responsibility in most cases, especially the more conservative they get.
    • CatWChainsaw 2y ago
      The judge who made the ruling was a conservative Trump appointee.
• endtime 2y ago
  Not that it matters, but I was curious and so I looked it up: the three-judge panel comprised one Obama-appointed judge and two Trump-appointed judges.
• drbojingle 2y ago
  There's no reason,as far as I'm concerned, that we shouldn't have a choice in algorithms on social media platforms. I want to be able to pick an open source algorithm that i can understand the pros and cons of. Hell let me pick 5. Why not?
• phendrenad2 2y ago
  I have no problem with this. Section 230 is almost 100 years old, long before anyone could have imagined an ML algorithm curating user content. Section 230 absolutely should come with an asterisk that if you train an algorithm to do your dirty work you don't get to claim it wasn't your fault.
• game_the0ry 2y ago
  Pavel gets arrested, Brazil threatens Elon, now this. I am not happy with how governments think they can dictate what internet users can and cannot see. With respect to TikTok, parents need have some discipline and not give smart phones to their ten-year-olds. You might as well give them a crack pipe.
  • CuriouslyC 2y ago
    shrug maybe our communication protocols should be distributed and not owned by billionaires. That would solve this problem neatly.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ratorx 2y ago
  I think a bigger issue in this case is the age. A 10-year old should not have access to TikTok unsupervised, especially when the ToS states the 13-year age threshold, regardless of the law’s opinion on moderation. I think especially content for children should be much more severely restricted, as it is with other media. It’s pretty well-known that age is easy to fake on the internet. I think that’s something that needs tightening as well. I’m not sure what the best way to approach it is though. There’s a parental education aspect, but I don’t see how general content on the internet can be restricted without putting everything behind an ID-verified login screen or mandating parental filters, which seems quite unrealistic.
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    > I’m not sure what the best way to approach it is though. Pretty much every option is full of pain, but I think the least-terrible approach would be for for sites to describe content with metadata (e.g. HTTP headers) and push all responsibility for blocking/filtering onto the client device. This has several benefits: 1. Cost. The people paying the most expense for the development and maintenance of blocking infrastructure will be the same parents who want to actually use it, instead of creating an enormous implicit tax on the entire digital world. 2. Privacy. The websites of the world don't need to know anything at all about the user. No birthdays, no geographical information to figure out what legal jurisdiction they live in, and no giant national lookup database that can track every website any resident registers to. Just isolated local devices that could be as simple as a Boolean for whether the child lock is currently unabled. (In practice I'm sure there will be local user accounts.) 3. Leveraging physical security. Parents do not need to be programmers to understand and enforce "little Timmy shouldn't be using anything except the tablet we specially set up for him that's covered with stickers of his favorite cartoon." Sure, Timmy might gain access to an unlocked device, but that's a challenge parents and communities are equipped to understand and handle. 4. Rule complexity. The individual devices can be programmed with whatever the local legal rules are for ages of majority, or it can simply be parents' responsibility to change things on a notable birthday. Parents who think ankles on women should never be shown at any age would be responsible for putting on plugins that add extra restrictions, instead of forcing that logic on the rest of the world.
• skeptrune 2y ago
  My interpretation of this is it will push social media companies to take a less active role in what they recommend to their users. It should not be possible to intentionally curate content while simultaneously avoiding the burden of removing content which would cause direct harm justifying a lawsuit. Could not be more excited to see this.
• Smithalicious 2y ago
  Hurting kids, hurting kids, hurting kids -- but, of course, there is zero chance any of this makes it to the top 30 causes of child mortality. Much to complain about with big tech, but children hanging themselves is just an outlier.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    This would be considered "accidental injury" which is the #1 cause of teenager mortality. The #3 cause is suicide which is influenced by social media as well - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• trinsic2 2y ago
  When I see CEO's, CFO's going to prison for the actions of there corporations, then I'll believe laws actually make things better. Otherwise any court decisions that say some action is now illegal is just posturing.
• hn_acker 2y ago
  For anyone making claims about what the authors of Section 230 intended or the extent to which Section 230 applies to targeted recommendations by algorithms, the authors of Section 230 (Ron Wyden and Chris Cox) wrote an amicus brief [1] for Google v. Gonzalez (2023). Here is an excerpt from the corresponding press release [2] by Wyden: > “Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content presentation,” the members wrote. “That interpretation enables Section 230 to fulfill Congress’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content presentation and moderation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable Internet users and platforms alike. Section 230’s protection remains as essential today as it was when the provision was enacted.” [1][PDF] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/wyden-cox-amicus-brief-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/wyden-cox-amicus-brief... [2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...
  • remich 2y ago
    I'm skeptical that Ron Wyden anticipated algorithmic social media feeds in 1996. But I'm pretty sure he gets a decent amount of lobbying cash from interested parties.
  • nsagent 2y ago
    This statement from Wyden's press release seems to be in contrast to Chris Cox's reasoning in his journal article [1] (linked in the amicus). It is now firmly established in the case law that Section 230 cannot act as a shield whenever a website is in any way complicit in the creation or development of illegal content. ... In FTC v. Accusearch,[69] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a website’s mere posting of content that it had no role whatsoever in creating — telephone records of private individuals — constituted “development” of that information, and so deprived it of Section 230 immunity. Even though the content was wholly created by others, the website knowingly transformed what had previously been private information into a publicly available commodity. Such complicity in illegality is what defines “development” of content, as distinguished from its creation. He goes on to list multiple similar cases and how they fit the original intent of the law. Then further clarifies that it's not just about illegal content, but all legal obligations: In writing Section 230, Rep. Wyden and I, and ultimately the entire Congress, decided that these legal rules should continue to apply on the internet just as in the offline world. Every business, whether operating through its online facility or through a brick-and-mortar facility, would continue to be responsible for all of its own legal obligations. Though, ultimately the original reasoning matters little in this case, as the courts are the ones to interpret the law. In fact Section 230 is one part of the larger Communications Decency Act that was mostly struck down by the Supreme Court. EDIT: Added quote about additional legal obligations. [1]: https://jolt.richmond.edu/2020/08/27/the-origins-and-original-intent-of-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act/ https://jolt.richmond.edu/2020/08/27/the-origins-and-origina...
• ssalka 2y ago
  > There is no way to run a targeted ad social media company with 40% margins if you have to make sure children aren’t harmed by your product. More specific than being harmed by your product, Section 230 cares about content you publish and whether you are acting as a publisher (liable for content) or a platform (not liable for content). This quote is supposing what would happen if Section 230 were overturned. But in fact, there is a way that companies would protect themselves: simply don't moderate content at all. Then you act purely as a platform, and don't have to ever worry about being treated as a publisher. Of course, this would turn the whole internet into 4chan, which nobody wants. IMO, this is one of the main reasons Section 230 continues to be used in this way.
  • ssalka 2y ago
    Also want to note that the inverse solution that companies could take is to be overly Draconian in moderating content, so as to take down anything that could come back negatively on them (in this case, the role of publisher is assumed and thus content moderation needs to be sufficiently robust so as to cover the company's ass).
• Nasrudith 2y ago
  It is amazing how people were programmed to completely forget the meaning of Section 230 over the years just by repetition of the stupidest propaganda.
• linotype 2y ago
  Twitter sold at the perfect time. Wow.
• skeltoac 2y ago
  Disclosures: I read the ruling before reading Matt Stoller’s article. I am a subscriber of his. I have written content recommendation algorithms for large audiences. I recommend doing one of these three things. Section 230 is not canceled. This is a significant but fairly narrow refinement of what constitutes original content and Stoller’s take (“The business model of big tech is over”) is vastly overstating it. Some kinds of recommendation algorithms produce original content (speech) by selecting and arranging feeds of other user generated content and the creators of the algorithms can be sued for harms caused by those recommendations. This correctly attaches liability to risky business. The businesses using this model need to exercise a duty of care toward the public. It’s about time they start.
• DidYaWipe 2y ago
  While this guy's missives are not always on target (his one supporting the DOJ's laughable and absurd case against Apple being an example of failure), some are on target... and indeed this ruling correctly calls out sites for exerting editorial control. If you're going to throw up your hands and say, "Well, users posted this, not us!" then you'd better not promote or bury any content with any algorithm, period. These assholes (TikTok et al) are now getting what they asked for with their abusive behavior.
• zmmmmm 2y ago
  What about "small tech"? ... because it's small tech that need Section 230. If anything, retraction of 230 will be the real free ride for big tech, because it will kill all chance of threatening competition at the next level down.
• tempeler 2y ago
  Finally, it goes to end of global social media. jurisdiction cannot be use as a weapon. if you use it as a weapon. they don't hesitate use that to you as a weapon.
• intended 2y ago
  Hoo boy. So- platforms aren’t publishers, they are distributors (like news stands or pharmacies). So they are responsible for the goods they sell. They aren’t responsible for user content - but they are responsible for what they choose to show. This is going to be dramatic.
• janalsncm 2y ago
  This seems like it contradicts the case where YouTube wasn’t liable for recommending terrorist videos to someone.
• janalsncm 2y ago
  Part of the reason social media has grown so big and been so profitable is that these platforms have scaled past their own abilities to do what normal companies are required to do. Facebook has a “marketplace” but no customer support line. Google is serving people scam ads for months, leading to millions in losses. (Imagine if a newspaper did that.) And feeds are allowed to recommend content that would be beyond the pale if a human were curating it. But because “it’s just an algorithm bro” we give them a pass because they can claim plausible deniability. If fixing this means certain companies can’t scale to a trillion dollars with no customer support, too bad. Google can’t vet every ad? They could, but choose not to. Figure it out. And content for children should have an even higher bar than that. Kids should not be dying from watching videos.
• rsingel 2y ago
  With no sense of irony, this blog is written on a platform that allows some Nazis, algorithmically promotes publishers, allows comments, and is thus only financially viable because of Section 230. If you actually want to understand something about the decision, I highly recommend Eric Goldman's blog post: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/08/bonkers-opinion-repeals-section-230-in-the-third-circuit-anderson-v-tiktok.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/08/bonkers-opinio...
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  "In other words, the fundamental issue here is not really whether big tech platforms should be regulated as speakers, as that's a misconception of what they do. They don't speak, they are middlemen." Parasites.
• ang_cire 2y ago
  This is wonderful news. The key thing people are missing is that TikTok is not being held responsible for the video content itself, they are being held responsible for their own code's actions. The video creator didn't share (or even attempt to share) the video with the victim- TikTok did. If adults want to subscribe themselves to that content, that is their choice. Hell, if kids actively seek out that content themselves, I don't think companies should be responsible if they find it. But if the company itself is the one proactively choosing to show that content to kids, that is 100% on them. This narrative of being blind to the vagaries of their own code is playing dumb at best: we all know what the code we write does, and so do they. They just don't want to admit that it's impossible to moderate that much content themselves with automatic recommendation algorithms. They could avoid this particular issue entirely by just showing people content they choose to subscribe to, but that doesn't allow them to inject content-based ads to a much broader audience, by showing that content to people who have not expressed interest/ subscribed to that content. And that puts this on them as a business.
• juanani 2y ago
  [dead]
• theendisney 2y ago
  I put a few forums online that never got active users. What they did get was spam, plenty of it, a lot of it. We can imagine the sheer amount of garbage posted on hn, reddit, Facebook etc Deleting the useless garbage one has to develop an idea where the line is suppose to be. The bias there will eventually touch all angles of human discourse. As an audience matures it gets more obvious what they would consider interesting or annoying. More bias. Then there are legal limits in each country, the "correct" religion and natuonalism. Quite the shit storm.
• telotortium 2y ago
  Anyone know what the reputation of the Third Circuit is? I want to know if this ruling is likely to hold up in the inevitable Supreme Court appeal. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation as flamingly progressive (see "Grants Pass v. Johnson", where SCOTUS overruled the Ninth Circuit, which had ruled that cities couldn't prevent homeless people from sleeping outside in public parks and sidewalks). The Fifth Circuit has a reactionary reputation (see "Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine", which overruled a Fifth Circuit ruling that effectively revoked the FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone).
• Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]