4 ms·
> The general idea is that whenever algorithms are deciding what you see Section 230 is not in play This isn't correct. The ruling was very narrow, with a key
by root_axis 10mo ago
> The general idea is that whenever algorithms are deciding what you see Section 230 is not in play
This isn't correct. The ruling was very narrow, with a key component being that a death was directly attributed to a trend recommend by the algorithm that TikTok was aware of, and knew was dangerous. That part is key - from a section 230 enforcement perspective it's basically the equivalent of not acting to remove illegal content. Basically everything we've understood about how algorithms are liable since section 230 was enacted remain intact.
- stockresearcher 10mo agoI don’t agree. The ruling used logical reasoning based on the 2023 Netchoice decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the moderating algorithms enjoyed first amendment protection. The first amendment protects you from liability from your own speech, while section 230 protects you from liability from somebody else’s speech. Ergo, if the platform was protected by the first amendment then the algorithm output was the speech of the platform. Netchoice had a bunch of concurring opinions, including from ACB that essentially says they really aren’t sure how they’d rule in a case directly challenging algorithmic recommendations. That’s why I say it’s not clear how the liability situation is, and it really is baffling why TikTok chose not to appeal.