flyingv

6 ms·

1.
by flyingv 3y ago
Section 230 was written in 1996, and in using phrases like "interactive computer service" and "access software provider" is absolutely ambiguous in its application to a 2023 internet. If it were clear, this case wouldn&#
2.
by flyingv 3y ago
+1 -- SCOTUS even seems to agree that they wish Congress would just modernize 230 so they wouldn't be trying to interpret what the word "publisher" (conceived before the internet existed) means in a digital era. All SCOTUS ca
3.
by flyingv 3y ago
If a distinction was drawn (by SCOTUS or Congress) between search results (where you ask the platform to produce a ranked list based on search criteria) and recommendations (where you theoretically didn't "instruct" the platf
4.
by flyingv 3y ago
>If YouTube's algorithm is deciding what to show me, then I (as the user) am asking for YouTube's opinion. So I think that there is a coherent argument that YouTube's recommendation algorithm is expressing an opinion, and
5.
by flyingv 3y ago
I think your distinction on push vs pull is a good one that Congress could consider incorporating if it chooses to revisit 230, though that approach is probably too far from the current text for SCOTUS to be willing to read it in when it ru
6.
by flyingv 3y ago
A quantity-driven test would mean that an algorithm that says "sort by number of mentions of ISIS" is safe, but an algorithm that says "sort by a score comprised of newness, number of upvotes, number of comments, and geograph
7.
by flyingv 3y ago
How would you respond to Google's argument that all content has to be ordered in _some_ manner to be displayed?
8.
by flyingv 3y ago
Some of their past internet-related cases have been worrisome, but if you listen to the oral arguments on this one they do ask some good questions... albeit that's probably partially due to their recent-law-school-grad clerks helping w
9.
by flyingv 3y ago
The Twitter example is a really good one. Google obviously choose to take things to the extreme by arguing that even deliberately pro-ISIS algos should get protection, but one more moderate outcome could be something like "YT is only l
10.
by flyingv 3y ago
Author here. Sounds like you and I agree that algo-generated recommendations of content are different from actual content itself. But the point of the article (and title) is that the plaintiffs in this case argue that each time YT generates