3 ms·
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 li
by 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 agoCongress has had ample opportunity to pass changes since the rise of algorithmic feeds too though and they haven't done so.
- thephyber 2y agoI 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.