3 ms·

Per the court of appeals, TikTok is not in trouble for showing a blackout challenge video. TikTok is in trouble for not censoring them after knowing they were c

Per the court of appeals, TikTok is not in trouble for showing a blackout challenge video. TikTok is in trouble for not censoring them after knowing they were causing harm. > "What does all this mean for Anderson’s claims? Well, § 230(c)(1)’s preemption of traditional publisher liability precludes Anderson from holding TikTok liable for the Blackout Challenge videos’ mere presence on TikTok’s platform. A conclusion Anderson’s counsel all but concedes. But § 230(c)(1) does not preempt distributor liability, so Anderson’s claims seeking to hold TikTok liable for continuing to host the Blackout Challenge videos knowing they were causing the death of children can proceed." As-in, Dang would be liable if say somebody started a blackout challenge post on HN and he didn't start censoring all of them once news reports of programmers dieing broke out. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mopaqabzypa/08272024tiktok.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mopaqabzypa/...

wahnfrieden 2y ago
What constitutes "censoring all of them"
- altairprime 2y ago
  Trying to define "all" is an impossibility; but, by virtue of having taken no action whatsoever, answering that question is irrelevant in the context of this particular judgment: Tiktok took no action, so the definition of "all" is irrelevant. See also for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393921 In general, judges will be ultimately responsible for evaluating whether "any", "sufficient", "appropriate", etc. actions were taken in each future case judgement they make. As with all things legalese, it's impossible to define with certainty a specific degree of action that is the uniform boundary of acceptable; but, as evident here, "none" is no longer permissible in that set. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- mattigames 2y ago
  Any good will attempt at censoring would have been as a reasonable defense even if technically they don't censor 100% of them, such as blocking videos with the word "blackout" on their title or manually approving videos with such thing, but they did nothing instead.
sangnoir 2y ago
> TikTok is in trouble for not censoring them after knowing they were causing harm. This has interesting higher-order effects on free speech. Let's apply the same ruling to vaccine misinformation, or the ability to organize protests on social media (which opponents will probably call riots if there are any injuries)
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Uh yeah, the court of appeals has reached an interesting decision. But I mean what do you expect from a group of judges that themselves have written they're moving away from precedent?
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    I don't doubt the same court relishes the thought of deciding what "harm" is on a case-by-case basis. The continued politicization of the courts will not end well for a society that nominally believes in the rule of law. Some quarters have been agitating for removing §230 safe harbor protections (or repealing it entirely), and the courts have delivered.
mattigames 2y ago
The ingenuity of kids to believe and be easily influenced by what they see online had a big role in this ruling, disregarding that is a huge disservice to a productive discussion.
whartung 2y ago
Does TikTok have to know that “as a category blackout videos are bad” or that “this specific video is bad”. Does TikTok have preempt this category of videos in the future or simply respond promptly when notified such a video is posted to their system?
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  Are you asking about the law, or are you asking our opinion? Do you think its reasonable for social media to send videos to people without considering how harmful they are? Do you even think its reasonable for search engine to respond to a specific request for this information?
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    Did some hands come out of the screen, pull a rope out then choke someone? Platforms shouldn’t be held responsible when 1 out of a million users wins a Darwin award.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - autoexec 2y ago
      I think it's a very different conversation when you're talking about social media sites pushing content they know is harmful onto people who they know are literal children.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Personally, I wouldn't want search engines censoring results for things explicitly searched for, but I'd still expect that social media should be responsible for harmful content they push onto users who never asked for it in the first place. Push vs Pull is an important distinction that should be considered.
    - MadnessASAP 2y ago

wahnfrieden 2y ago

What constitutes "censoring all of them"

altairprime 2y ago
Trying to define "all" is an impossibility; but, by virtue of having taken no action whatsoever, answering that question is irrelevant in the context of this particular judgment: Tiktok took no action, so the definition of "all" is irrelevant. See also for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393921 In general, judges will be ultimately responsible for evaluating whether "any", "sufficient", "appropriate", etc. actions were taken in each future case judgement they make. As with all things legalese, it's impossible to define with certainty a specific degree of action that is the uniform boundary of acceptable; but, as evident here, "none" is no longer permissible in that set. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
mattigames 2y ago
Any good will attempt at censoring would have been as a reasonable defense even if technically they don't censor 100% of them, such as blocking videos with the word "blackout" on their title or manually approving videos with such thing, but they did nothing instead.

sangnoir 2y ago

> TikTok is in trouble for not censoring them after knowing they were causing harm. This has interesting higher-order effects on free speech. Let's apply the same ruling to vaccine misinformation, or the ability to organize protests on social media (which opponents will probably call riots if there are any injuries)

lesuorac 2y ago
Uh yeah, the court of appeals has reached an interesting decision. But I mean what do you expect from a group of judges that themselves have written they're moving away from precedent?
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I don't doubt the same court relishes the thought of deciding what "harm" is on a case-by-case basis. The continued politicization of the courts will not end well for a society that nominally believes in the rule of law. Some quarters have been agitating for removing §230 safe harbor protections (or repealing it entirely), and the courts have delivered.

mattigames 2y ago

The ingenuity of kids to believe and be easily influenced by what they see online had a big role in this ruling, disregarding that is a huge disservice to a productive discussion.

whartung 2y ago

Does TikTok have to know that “as a category blackout videos are bad” or that “this specific video is bad”. Does TikTok have preempt this category of videos in the future or simply respond promptly when notified such a video is posted to their system?

jay_kyburz 2y ago
Are you asking about the law, or are you asking our opinion? Do you think its reasonable for social media to send videos to people without considering how harmful they are? Do you even think its reasonable for search engine to respond to a specific request for this information?
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  Did some hands come out of the screen, pull a rope out then choke someone? Platforms shouldn’t be held responsible when 1 out of a million users wins a Darwin award.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I think it's a very different conversation when you're talking about social media sites pushing content they know is harmful onto people who they know are literal children.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Personally, I wouldn't want search engines censoring results for things explicitly searched for, but I'd still expect that social media should be responsible for harmful content they push onto users who never asked for it in the first place. Push vs Pull is an important distinction that should be considered.
  - MadnessASAP 2y ago