5 ms·

Specifically, I believe Section 230 protections shouldn't apply to algorithmicly promoted content. TikTok hosting my video isn't inherently an endorsement of w

by slg 7mo ago

Specifically, I believe Section 230 protections shouldn't apply to algorithmicly promoted content. TikTok hosting my video isn't inherently an endorsement of what I'm saying, but proactively pushing that video to people is functionally equivalent even if you want to quible over dictionary definitions. These algorithms take these platforms from dumb content-agnostic pipes that deserve protections to editorial enterprises that should bear responsibility for what they promote.

Aurornis 7mo ago
How would you square that with a site like Hacker News, which has algorithms for showing user-submitted links and user-generated comments?
- slg 7mo ago
  Listing content alphabetically or chronologically is technically an "algorithm" too. What I'm specifically challenging here is the personalized algorithm designed to keep individual users on the platform based off a user profile influenced by countless active and passive choices the user has made over time. The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    So if HN added anything personalized, like allowing you to show fewer stories on topics you dislike, it would lose protection? I can't get on board with that. I also think it would be extremely unpopular. People like their recommendation engines. They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. They want Reddit to help them find more similar subreddits. I know there are HN users who don't want any of these recommendation engines, but on the whole people actually want them.
    - levkk 7mo ago
      I'm paying for Netflix to do that as a feature. Instagram uses that to drive engagement to sell ads. Disabling personalized content on Netflix is a revenue-neutral choice. On Instagram, that would mean their ad revenue takes a huge dive. Apples aren't oranges.
      - krapp 7mo ago
        Netflix does it to drive engagement as well.
    - skydhash 7mo ago
      That is not comparable because of the little you have over the algorithm for the other cases. On bandcamp, you can select the genre and a sorting criteria and have very good control over the list. But on Spotify, it’s very obscure, with things you’ve never asked for being in front even before your own library.
    - slg 7mo ago
      >People like their recommendation engines. People liked cigarettes too. >They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. I'm not suggesting these algorithms should be illegal, just that Section 230 protections were defined too broadly because they predated the feasibility of these type of algorithms. These platforms would be free to continue algorithmic promotion, but I believe these algorithms would be less harmful if the platforms had to worry about potential legal liability. Think YouTube and copyright for comparison. The DMCA is far from perfect, but we have YouTube as an example of a platform that survived and even thrived in the transition from a world that didn't care about copyrighted internet video to one in which they that needed to moderate with copyright in mind.
      - Aurornis 7mo ago
        > People liked cigarattes too. Cigarettes weren’t made illegal. Cigarette companies are not liable for their user’s choice to consume them. What’s your point? > Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. Perhaps it was a little too revealing on your end that you conveniently ignored my other example of Reddit. If you need to cherry pick to make your point it doesn’t look very strong. I still don’t see consistency in your argument that Section 230 should still apply to Hacker News but not, for example, Reddit, simply because one of them allows users to personalize the content they see.
  - krapp 7mo ago
    But algorithmic feeds can actually be useful for discovery of related material - I want Youtube to show me more Japanese jazz and video essays about true crime based on my watch history, I wanted Twitter to show me more accounts from writers and game developers because I follow them (before the platform went full Nazi) and I like that Facebook shows me people and information from my local area. Forcing all platforms to use only alphabetical or chronological feeds because of the exploitative way some platforms use algorithms seems awfully close to the "banning math" argument people used to use about cryptography and DRM, and it would remove a lot of legitimate use from the internet.
    - idle_zealot 7mo ago
      It's all about who controls the algorithm. A sensible approach would be to decouple recommendations from platforms, to treat them like plug-ins that the user must be allowed to add or disable. You want to use YouTube's recommendation algorithm on YouTube? Great, but there needs to be an off-switch and a way to change over to another provider. This is classic anti-trust stuff, breaking up a sector into interoperable pieces.
      - krapp 7mo ago
        The anti-trust argument doesn't work for me. Neither Youtube nor any other single platform represent a "sector" in the way Standard Oil or Ma Bell represented a "sector", they don't "control the algorithm" in any sense beyond implementing code on their site. Certainly not in the way that a monopoly preventing other entities from competing against it by controlling access to some physical resource. Other video hosting sites besides Youtube exist, other social media platforms exist, so competition exists. And besides, what's likely to happen is that you'll only have a few "algorithm providers" controlling access the entire web which only centralizes it even more.
- qotgalaxy 7mo ago
  [dead]
- qotgalaxy 7mo ago
  [dead]
deeponey 7mo ago
Really nice to see someone else bringing this up. Algorithmic editorial decisions are still editorial decisions. I think ultimately search and other forms of selective content surfacing should not have ever been exempt. They were never carriers. I appreciate that this would make the web as we know it unusable. I think failing to tackle this problem has will also make the web unusable, and in a worse way.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > I think ultimately search and other forms of selective content surfacing should not have ever been exempt. They were never carriers. I appreciate that this would make the web as we know it unusable I can’t be the only one confused at these calls to have the government destroy things like searching the web, am I? How is this a real idea being proposed on Hacker News, of all places? Not that long ago it was all about freedom on the Internet and getting angry when the government interfered with our right to speech online, and now there are calls to do drastic measures like make search engines legally untenable to run in the United States? It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do? Shrug their shoulders and give up on the internet? Or go use a search engine from another country?
  - idle_zealot 7mo ago
    > How is this a real idea being proposed on Hacker News, of all places? Not that long ago it was all about freedom on the Internet and getting angry when the government interfered with our right to speech online I can be upset about the government trying to make the world worse, and about other huge balls of power who have been making the world shitty in an ongoing fashion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean shit if a handful of people can buy up or otherwise absorb control of 90% of media and choose who gets heard. The call for regulation is an acknowledgment that the market fucked this one up. When the government threatens speech, I'll call for civil disobedience and proactive protections. When oligarchs threaten speech I'll call for regulation and punishment. > It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do? You assume that the only way to get a good, free search engine is to give control of it to some private entity. That if we don't do it in the US, people with turn to someplace else. I think you may be lacking in imagination. At a minimum, the possibility exists for nonprofit organizations to run quality search engines, but it's also possible to decouple the indexing business from the ranking provider. Google could run an index and charge for access, and ranking providers could build on top of that and recoup costs with non-tracking ads, donations, sales, whatever business model they please. Just because an unregulated market doesn't come up with a good solution doesn't mean a market under different constraints won't find a better way. And if nothing works out you always have the option of grants or a public digital infrastructure approach. There are so many things to try beyond shrugging and declaring that the market has ordained five dudes arbiters of the internet as experienced by most people.
jcranmer 7mo ago
There is a decent legal argument to be made that §230 doesn't immunize platforms for the speech of their algorithm, to the extent that said speech is different from the speech of the underlying content. (A simple, if absurd, example of this would be if I ran a web forum and then created a highlight page of all of the defamatory comments people posted, then I'm probably liable for defamation.) The problem of course is that it's difficult to disentangle the speech of algorithmic moderation from the speech of the content being moderated. And the minor issue that the vast majority of things people complain about is just plain First Amendment-protected speech, so it's not like the §230 protections actually matter as the content isn't illegal in the first place.
robhlt 7mo ago
I don't think we even need to go that far. Just remove protection for paid advertisements. It's absurd that Meta cannot be held liable for the ads they promote when a newspaper can be held liable if they were to publish the same ad.
- soco 7mo ago
  But isn't this difficult when the tech bosses are in cahoots with the country bosses? And honestly even if the leadership changes, I somehow have a feeling the techs will naturally switch boats as well - might be a reason why the opposition doesn't paint them that much nowadays, to make sure they switch along.
  - philipallstar 7mo ago
    They were all staunch Democrats with pro-censor stances until 14 months ago, and for a long long time.
philipallstar 7mo ago
This seems the same as news organisations choosing which news to report on, but driven by user behaviour rather than the org's employees themselves.

by slg 7mo ago

Aurornis 7mo ago

How would you square that with a site like Hacker News, which has algorithms for showing user-submitted links and user-generated comments?

slg 7mo ago
Listing content alphabetically or chronologically is technically an "algorithm" too. What I'm specifically challenging here is the personalized algorithm designed to keep individual users on the platform based off a user profile influenced by countless active and passive choices the user has made over time. The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  So if HN added anything personalized, like allowing you to show fewer stories on topics you dislike, it would lose protection? I can't get on board with that. I also think it would be extremely unpopular. People like their recommendation engines. They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. They want Reddit to help them find more similar subreddits. I know there are HN users who don't want any of these recommendation engines, but on the whole people actually want them.
  - levkk 7mo ago
    I'm paying for Netflix to do that as a feature. Instagram uses that to drive engagement to sell ads. Disabling personalized content on Netflix is a revenue-neutral choice. On Instagram, that would mean their ad revenue takes a huge dive. Apples aren't oranges.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      Netflix does it to drive engagement as well.
  - skydhash 7mo ago
    That is not comparable because of the little you have over the algorithm for the other cases. On bandcamp, you can select the genre and a sorting criteria and have very good control over the list. But on Spotify, it’s very obscure, with things you’ve never asked for being in front even before your own library.
  - slg 7mo ago
    >People like their recommendation engines. People liked cigarettes too. >They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. I'm not suggesting these algorithms should be illegal, just that Section 230 protections were defined too broadly because they predated the feasibility of these type of algorithms. These platforms would be free to continue algorithmic promotion, but I believe these algorithms would be less harmful if the platforms had to worry about potential legal liability. Think YouTube and copyright for comparison. The DMCA is far from perfect, but we have YouTube as an example of a platform that survived and even thrived in the transition from a world that didn't care about copyrighted internet video to one in which they that needed to moderate with copyright in mind.
    - Aurornis 7mo ago
      > People liked cigarattes too. Cigarettes weren’t made illegal. Cigarette companies are not liable for their user’s choice to consume them. What’s your point? > Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. Perhaps it was a little too revealing on your end that you conveniently ignored my other example of Reddit. If you need to cherry pick to make your point it doesn’t look very strong. I still don’t see consistency in your argument that Section 230 should still apply to Hacker News but not, for example, Reddit, simply because one of them allows users to personalize the content they see.
- krapp 7mo ago
  But algorithmic feeds can actually be useful for discovery of related material - I want Youtube to show me more Japanese jazz and video essays about true crime based on my watch history, I wanted Twitter to show me more accounts from writers and game developers because I follow them (before the platform went full Nazi) and I like that Facebook shows me people and information from my local area. Forcing all platforms to use only alphabetical or chronological feeds because of the exploitative way some platforms use algorithms seems awfully close to the "banning math" argument people used to use about cryptography and DRM, and it would remove a lot of legitimate use from the internet.
  - idle_zealot 7mo ago
    It's all about who controls the algorithm. A sensible approach would be to decouple recommendations from platforms, to treat them like plug-ins that the user must be allowed to add or disable. You want to use YouTube's recommendation algorithm on YouTube? Great, but there needs to be an off-switch and a way to change over to another provider. This is classic anti-trust stuff, breaking up a sector into interoperable pieces.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      The anti-trust argument doesn't work for me. Neither Youtube nor any other single platform represent a "sector" in the way Standard Oil or Ma Bell represented a "sector", they don't "control the algorithm" in any sense beyond implementing code on their site. Certainly not in the way that a monopoly preventing other entities from competing against it by controlling access to some physical resource. Other video hosting sites besides Youtube exist, other social media platforms exist, so competition exists. And besides, what's likely to happen is that you'll only have a few "algorithm providers" controlling access the entire web which only centralizes it even more.
qotgalaxy 7mo ago
[dead]
qotgalaxy 7mo ago
[dead]

deeponey 7mo ago

Really nice to see someone else bringing this up. Algorithmic editorial decisions are still editorial decisions. I think ultimately search and other forms of selective content surfacing should not have ever been exempt. They were never carriers. I appreciate that this would make the web as we know it unusable. I think failing to tackle this problem has will also make the web unusable, and in a worse way.

Aurornis 7mo ago
> I think ultimately search and other forms of selective content surfacing should not have ever been exempt. They were never carriers. I appreciate that this would make the web as we know it unusable I can’t be the only one confused at these calls to have the government destroy things like searching the web, am I? How is this a real idea being proposed on Hacker News, of all places? Not that long ago it was all about freedom on the Internet and getting angry when the government interfered with our right to speech online, and now there are calls to do drastic measures like make search engines legally untenable to run in the United States? It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do? Shrug their shoulders and give up on the internet? Or go use a search engine from another country?
- idle_zealot 7mo ago
  > How is this a real idea being proposed on Hacker News, of all places? Not that long ago it was all about freedom on the Internet and getting angry when the government interfered with our right to speech online I can be upset about the government trying to make the world worse, and about other huge balls of power who have been making the world shitty in an ongoing fashion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean shit if a handful of people can buy up or otherwise absorb control of 90% of media and choose who gets heard. The call for regulation is an acknowledgment that the market fucked this one up. When the government threatens speech, I'll call for civil disobedience and proactive protections. When oligarchs threaten speech I'll call for regulation and punishment. > It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do? You assume that the only way to get a good, free search engine is to give control of it to some private entity. That if we don't do it in the US, people with turn to someplace else. I think you may be lacking in imagination. At a minimum, the possibility exists for nonprofit organizations to run quality search engines, but it's also possible to decouple the indexing business from the ranking provider. Google could run an index and charge for access, and ranking providers could build on top of that and recoup costs with non-tracking ads, donations, sales, whatever business model they please. Just because an unregulated market doesn't come up with a good solution doesn't mean a market under different constraints won't find a better way. And if nothing works out you always have the option of grants or a public digital infrastructure approach. There are so many things to try beyond shrugging and declaring that the market has ordained five dudes arbiters of the internet as experienced by most people.

jcranmer 7mo ago

There is a decent legal argument to be made that §230 doesn't immunize platforms for the speech of their algorithm, to the extent that said speech is different from the speech of the underlying content. (A simple, if absurd, example of this would be if I ran a web forum and then created a highlight page of all of the defamatory comments people posted, then I'm probably liable for defamation.) The problem of course is that it's difficult to disentangle the speech of algorithmic moderation from the speech of the content being moderated. And the minor issue that the vast majority of things people complain about is just plain First Amendment-protected speech, so it's not like the §230 protections actually matter as the content isn't illegal in the first place.

robhlt 7mo ago

I don't think we even need to go that far. Just remove protection for paid advertisements. It's absurd that Meta cannot be held liable for the ads they promote when a newspaper can be held liable if they were to publish the same ad.

soco 7mo ago
But isn't this difficult when the tech bosses are in cahoots with the country bosses? And honestly even if the leadership changes, I somehow have a feeling the techs will naturally switch boats as well - might be a reason why the opposition doesn't paint them that much nowadays, to make sure they switch along.
- philipallstar 7mo ago
  They were all staunch Democrats with pro-censor stances until 14 months ago, and for a long long time.

philipallstar 7mo ago

This seems the same as news organisations choosing which news to report on, but driven by user behaviour rather than the org's employees themselves.