4 ms·
It's worth noting that personalisation isn't moderation, An app like TikTok needs both. Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thi
by phire 2y ago
It's worth noting that personalisation isn't moderation, An app like TikTok needs both.
Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thinks they want to see. Moderation (which is typically also an algorithm) tries to remove harmful content from the platform altogether.
The ruling isn't saying that Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok moderated. It's saying Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok personalised, allegedly knew about the harmful content and allegedly didn't take enough action to moderate this harmful content.
- cdchn 2y ago>Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thinks they want to see. These algorithms aren't matching you with what you want to see, they're trying to maximize your engagement- or, its what the operator wants you to see, so you'll use the site more and generate more data or revenue. Its a fine, but extremely important distinction.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoWhat the operator wants you to see also gets into the area of manipulation, hence 230 shouldn't apply - by making algorithms based on manipulation or paid for boosting companies move from impartial unknowing deliverers of harmful content into committed distributors of it.
- fasa99 2y ago"harmful content" is such a joke word. if a piece of text or media could harm people the military would have weaponized it long ago. Even monty python made a satire of such a "harmful content" scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qklvh5Cp_Bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qklvh5Cp_Bs Big tech's hyperbole of the word is even more severe than Monty Pythons absurdist satire. Sadly it's not a joke.
- vlark 2y agoLet me introduce you to the concept of psychological warfare. . .