5 ms·

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 algor

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.
      - supernewton 2y ago
        The third sentence is "If the kid searched specifically for the video and found it, TikTok would have been safe."
        falcolas 2y ago
        Aah, I counted paragraphs - repeatedly - for some reason. That's my bad. That said, this is a statement completely unsubstantiated in the original post or in the post that it links to, or the decision in TFA. It's the poster's opinion stated as if it were a fact or a part of the Judge's ruling.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        You're right, I did jump to that conclusion. It turns out it was the correct conclusion, although I definitely shouldn't have said it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41394465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41394465
ndiddy 2y ago
From page 11 of the decision: "We reach this conclusion specifically because TikTok’s promotion of a Blackout Challenge video on Nylah’s FYP was not contingent upon any specific user input. 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."

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.
    - supernewton 2y ago
      The third sentence is "If the kid searched specifically for the video and found it, TikTok would have been safe."
      - falcolas 2y ago
        Aah, I counted paragraphs - repeatedly - for some reason. That's my bad. That said, this is a statement completely unsubstantiated in the original post or in the post that it links to, or the decision in TFA. It's the poster's opinion stated as if it were a fact or a part of the Judge's ruling.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        You're right, I did jump to that conclusion. It turns out it was the correct conclusion, although I definitely shouldn't have said it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41394465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41394465

ndiddy 2y ago

From page 11 of the decision: "We reach this conclusion specifically because TikTok’s promotion of a Blackout Challenge video on Nylah’s FYP was not contingent upon any specific user input. 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."