4 ms·

If one treats the order of content as a message unto itself, then wouldn't an attempt to regulate or in some way restrict recommendation algorithms infringe upo

If one treats the order of content as a message unto itself, then wouldn't an attempt to regulate or in some way restrict recommendation algorithms infringe upon freedom of speech? If I decide to tweak my site's recommendation algorithm to slightly more often show content in favor of a particular political party, isn't that my right?

basch 2y ago
That's why I proposed the paradox. At what tipping point does the arranger become the speaker? Read 230. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. 230 says you can moderate however you like and what you choose to leave up doesnt become your own speech through endorsement osmosis. I agree with 230 to a point, but at some extreme it can be used to misrepresent speech as "someone elses." Similar to how the authors of newspapers wouldnt be the speaker of a ransom note because they contributed one letter or word, and it woild be absurd to claim otherwise. If the arranger is the speaker, restrictions on free speech apply to their newly created context. Accountability applies.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  The way the problem is phrased makes it reducible to the sorites problem. There are better ways of formulating the question that avoid this paradox, such as "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for editorial intervention to dominate an artifact?"
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Section 230 is about who's liable if speech either breaks the law or causes damages in some way unprotected by the First Amendment. That's the table-stakes of the discussion. It's a little silly to bring up the First Amendment given that context.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  How could you break the law by merely reordering the content a user will see?
- basch 2y ago
  You have it backwards. 230 is about who is NOT liable. Platforms are NOT liable for what they don't moderate, just because they moderated other things. It protects them from imperfect moderation being used to claim endorsement.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Surely they're one and the same. By explicitly stating that someone is not liable, you're indirectly defining more the set of people who are liable.

basch 2y ago

That's why I proposed the paradox. At what tipping point does the arranger become the speaker? Read 230. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. 230 says you can moderate however you like and what you choose to leave up doesnt become your own speech through endorsement osmosis. I agree with 230 to a point, but at some extreme it can be used to misrepresent speech as "someone elses." Similar to how the authors of newspapers wouldnt be the speaker of a ransom note because they contributed one letter or word, and it woild be absurd to claim otherwise. If the arranger is the speaker, restrictions on free speech apply to their newly created context. Accountability applies.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
The way the problem is phrased makes it reducible to the sorites problem. There are better ways of formulating the question that avoid this paradox, such as "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for editorial intervention to dominate an artifact?"

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Section 230 is about who's liable if speech either breaks the law or causes damages in some way unprotected by the First Amendment. That's the table-stakes of the discussion. It's a little silly to bring up the First Amendment given that context.

fluoridation 2y ago
How could you break the law by merely reordering the content a user will see?
basch 2y ago
You have it backwards. 230 is about who is NOT liable. Platforms are NOT liable for what they don't moderate, just because they moderated other things. It protects them from imperfect moderation being used to claim endorsement.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  Surely they're one and the same. By explicitly stating that someone is not liable, you're indirectly defining more the set of people who are liable.