3 ms·

> Legally, I think making algorithmic decisions based on content should be treated as a first-party act of publishing. That was basically the direction the rul

by pdonis 5mo ago

> Legally, I think making algorithmic decisions based on content should be treated as a first-party act of publishing. That was basically the direction the ruling in Anderson v. TikTok was pointing, yes? The question is going to be where you draw the line. For example, if HN's automated mechanisms make a post invisible (to anyone who doesn't have showdead enabled) after enough downvotes, is that "making algorithmic decisions based on content"? I don't think so, or at any rate I don't think it's at all the same as the kind of things the big tech giants do algorithmically. But the line needs to be carefully drawn.

krapp 5mo ago
>I don't think so, or at any rate I don't think it's at all the same as the kind of things the big tech giants do algorithmically. It's an algorithmic decision based on content designed to influence the end user, it's exactly the same thing. Section 230 is scale invariant in that it applies to all sites hosting third party content, there is no reason to assume any regulation which replaces it would be any different.
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > It's an algorithmic decision based on content designed to influence the end user, it's exactly the same thing. That's certainly one way to view it, yes. Indeed, court rulings (prior to Anderson v. TikTok) basically took exactly this viewpoint. Anderson v. TikTok, however, did not: that ruling found that TikTok could not claim Section 230 protection for its algorithms that recommended certain videos to users. But that ruling said nothing about moderation actions in general, such as the kind I described that HN routinely takes. Those actions are "algorithmic", yes, but the algorithm is very simple, and its key input comes from users, not the platform: basically "if a post gets x or more downvotes, put it into this different category that means users won't see it unless they opt in to seeing posts in this category". In other words, HN is not using its own data (like what kinds of posts a user has looked at, or viewed longest, etc.--I don't think HN even collects such data) to decide what posts to "recommend" (or perhaps in this case "disrecommend") to users; it's just using user input that already exists (downvotes). I think that difference is significant, but of course I'm not a lawyer. But I think it would be bad if that kind of moderation action got lumped in with the kind TikTok is being sued for, if the ruling in that suit, that TikTok can't claim Section 230 protection for its algorithms, holds up. I think sites like HN should have that protection, even if we decide to take it away from sites like TikTok for those particular kinds of algorithms. But, as I said, that line has to be carefully drawn. One possible way of drawing the line might be to look at the particular language of Section 230: it talks about sites not being liable for good faith actions to restrict access to material they deem objectionable; but it does not talk about sites not being liable for actions taken to encourage access to material they think a user would like. HN's moderation actions are the former; but the TikTok algorithms that they're being sued for were the latter.
jmyeet 5mo ago
I don't really agree with the ruling and framing in Anderson. It feels contrived to view Tiktok's algorithm as a First Amendment expression yet somehow separate that from the content being pushed on the fyp. I think a similar case is going to reach the appellate courts in a different circuit and they're going to reach a different conclusion and then the Supreme Court will get involved. Section 230 isn't a limitation on speech and shouldn't be conflated as such. It's a liability issue for that speech. Bringing this legal framework to HN I see three issues: 1. The flagging system is, I believe, largely automated. As such, it's user-driven and content-agnostic. But, flags can be reviewed and removed. Not sure how often that happens. Could that be an issue? My intuition says "no" but I'd probably have to think about it more to come up with a reason why; 2. Reddit lets you decide what order to see comments in. Newest, oldest, most popular, most controversial. HN doesn't. It used to be that you'd see vote counts and that got removed. I, personally, think that was a mistake. It at least gives the impression it's to hide just how much the thumb is on the scale. Personally, I prefer the transparency of the Reddit model. But would it be an issue with this interpretation of Section 230? It doesn't feel like it; 3. The general ranking of submissions. As any long-time user would know, some stories fall off the front page real quick. Some get flagged outright. There's user signal and action here but also direct admin action. Is this an issue? It doesn't feel like it, particularly because it seems to be largely content-agnostic. Dang has said they try and maintain quality by getting rid of low-quality posts or posts prone to flamewars. That's fair enough. I tend to think this avoidance of flamewars is abused by end users to trigger such actions if they don't like the topic. Thread arson is real. The extreme end of being content agnostic is having a site full of raw milk drinking, Ivermectin and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Nobody wants that so it should be possible to maintain quality or even just a subject focus. Like a subreddit dedicated to model trains shouldn't have to suffer posts about raw milk. It's a complex issue and I'm not sure how it's going to end. My main point is that the types of content suppression (and the opposite) done by the likes of Twitter and Meta platforms based on the content thereof will eventually draw the attention of the courts who will scrutinize those actions based on their intended goals and the net result will be that third-party strict liability immunity under Section 230 simply won't be absolute.
belorn 5mo ago
A bright and clear line is usually hard to get in laws, and with big tech giants it will become a judgement call. They will have mountain of project goals, development requirements, test documents, q/a objectives and sometimes code documentation that all will describe what the algorithm is intended to do. In discovery phases it is also very common to see people being very explicit in internal communication. Let say investigators would look at ycombinators and the design of the algorithm. Do we expect to see a major publishing-style on what content get promoted? Doubtful. There have been exception where they seem to have done moderation that has been close to publishing, like the early time around metoo, but they seem also to have been fairly open that they were experiment with moderation and testing how it effected the community. I remember HN moderator posts in the past talking a bit about promoting important articles or demoting tiresome topics.

by pdonis 5mo ago

krapp 5mo ago

>I don't think so, or at any rate I don't think it's at all the same as the kind of things the big tech giants do algorithmically. It's an algorithmic decision based on content designed to influence the end user, it's exactly the same thing. Section 230 is scale invariant in that it applies to all sites hosting third party content, there is no reason to assume any regulation which replaces it would be any different.

pdonis 5mo ago
> It's an algorithmic decision based on content designed to influence the end user, it's exactly the same thing. That's certainly one way to view it, yes. Indeed, court rulings (prior to Anderson v. TikTok) basically took exactly this viewpoint. Anderson v. TikTok, however, did not: that ruling found that TikTok could not claim Section 230 protection for its algorithms that recommended certain videos to users. But that ruling said nothing about moderation actions in general, such as the kind I described that HN routinely takes. Those actions are "algorithmic", yes, but the algorithm is very simple, and its key input comes from users, not the platform: basically "if a post gets x or more downvotes, put it into this different category that means users won't see it unless they opt in to seeing posts in this category". In other words, HN is not using its own data (like what kinds of posts a user has looked at, or viewed longest, etc.--I don't think HN even collects such data) to decide what posts to "recommend" (or perhaps in this case "disrecommend") to users; it's just using user input that already exists (downvotes). I think that difference is significant, but of course I'm not a lawyer. But I think it would be bad if that kind of moderation action got lumped in with the kind TikTok is being sued for, if the ruling in that suit, that TikTok can't claim Section 230 protection for its algorithms, holds up. I think sites like HN should have that protection, even if we decide to take it away from sites like TikTok for those particular kinds of algorithms. But, as I said, that line has to be carefully drawn. One possible way of drawing the line might be to look at the particular language of Section 230: it talks about sites not being liable for good faith actions to restrict access to material they deem objectionable; but it does not talk about sites not being liable for actions taken to encourage access to material they think a user would like. HN's moderation actions are the former; but the TikTok algorithms that they're being sued for were the latter.

jmyeet 5mo ago

I don't really agree with the ruling and framing in Anderson. It feels contrived to view Tiktok's algorithm as a First Amendment expression yet somehow separate that from the content being pushed on the fyp. I think a similar case is going to reach the appellate courts in a different circuit and they're going to reach a different conclusion and then the Supreme Court will get involved. Section 230 isn't a limitation on speech and shouldn't be conflated as such. It's a liability issue for that speech. Bringing this legal framework to HN I see three issues: 1. The flagging system is, I believe, largely automated. As such, it's user-driven and content-agnostic. But, flags can be reviewed and removed. Not sure how often that happens. Could that be an issue? My intuition says "no" but I'd probably have to think about it more to come up with a reason why; 2. Reddit lets you decide what order to see comments in. Newest, oldest, most popular, most controversial. HN doesn't. It used to be that you'd see vote counts and that got removed. I, personally, think that was a mistake. It at least gives the impression it's to hide just how much the thumb is on the scale. Personally, I prefer the transparency of the Reddit model. But would it be an issue with this interpretation of Section 230? It doesn't feel like it; 3. The general ranking of submissions. As any long-time user would know, some stories fall off the front page real quick. Some get flagged outright. There's user signal and action here but also direct admin action. Is this an issue? It doesn't feel like it, particularly because it seems to be largely content-agnostic. Dang has said they try and maintain quality by getting rid of low-quality posts or posts prone to flamewars. That's fair enough. I tend to think this avoidance of flamewars is abused by end users to trigger such actions if they don't like the topic. Thread arson is real. The extreme end of being content agnostic is having a site full of raw milk drinking, Ivermectin and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Nobody wants that so it should be possible to maintain quality or even just a subject focus. Like a subreddit dedicated to model trains shouldn't have to suffer posts about raw milk. It's a complex issue and I'm not sure how it's going to end. My main point is that the types of content suppression (and the opposite) done by the likes of Twitter and Meta platforms based on the content thereof will eventually draw the attention of the courts who will scrutinize those actions based on their intended goals and the net result will be that third-party strict liability immunity under Section 230 simply won't be absolute.

belorn 5mo ago

A bright and clear line is usually hard to get in laws, and with big tech giants it will become a judgement call. They will have mountain of project goals, development requirements, test documents, q/a objectives and sometimes code documentation that all will describe what the algorithm is intended to do. In discovery phases it is also very common to see people being very explicit in internal communication. Let say investigators would look at ycombinators and the design of the algorithm. Do we expect to see a major publishing-style on what content get promoted? Doubtful. There have been exception where they seem to have done moderation that has been close to publishing, like the early time around metoo, but they seem also to have been fairly open that they were experiment with moderation and testing how it effected the community. I remember HN moderator posts in the past talking a bit about promoting important articles or demoting tiresome topics.