3 ms·

The HN team explicitly and manually manages the front page of HN, so I think it's completely unarguable that they would be held liable under this ruling if at l

The HN team explicitly and manually manages the front page of HN, so I think it's completely unarguable that they would be held liable under this ruling if at least the front page contained links to articles that caused harm. They manually promote certain posts that they find particularly good, even if they didn't get a lot of votes, so this is even more direct than what TikTok did in this case.

philistine 2y ago
The decision specifically mentions algorithmic recommandation as being speech, ergo the recommandation itself is the responsibility of the platform. Where is the algorithmic recommandation that differs per user on HN?
- amitport 2y ago
  where does it say that it matters if it differs per user?
  - klik99 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.
klik99 2y ago
It is absolutely still arguable in court, since this ruling interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to pertain to “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,” In other words, the Supreme Court decision mentions editorial decisions but no court case has yet backed up if that means editorial decisions in the HN front page sense (as in mods make some choices but it’s not personalized.) Common sense may say mods making decisions is editorial decisions but it’s a gray area until a court case makes it clear. Precedence is the most important thing when interpreting law, and the only precedence we have is that it pertains to personalized feeds.

3 ms·

The HN team explicitly and manually manages the front page of HN, so I think it's completely unarguable that they would be held liable under this ruling if at l

by tsimionescu 2y ago

philistine 2y ago
The decision specifically mentions algorithmic recommandation as being speech, ergo the recommandation itself is the responsibility of the platform. Where is the algorithmic recommandation that differs per user on HN?
- amitport 2y ago
  where does it say that it matters if it differs per user?
  - klik99 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.
klik99 2y ago
It is absolutely still arguable in court, since this ruling interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to pertain to “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,” In other words, the Supreme Court decision mentions editorial decisions but no court case has yet backed up if that means editorial decisions in the HN front page sense (as in mods make some choices but it’s not personalized.) Common sense may say mods making decisions is editorial decisions but it’s a gray area until a court case makes it clear. Precedence is the most important thing when interpreting law, and the only precedence we have is that it pertains to personalized feeds.