Facebook has created a machine to capture attention and increase engagement with little regard to any other parameters. Despite being shown evidence that its machine contributes to political extremism and violence, it has typically refused to make changes that would reduce those effects if those changes would also reduce engagement.
It's fair to claim innocent intent early on, but someone who is aware their behavior has harmful impacts and continues that behavior has, at best negligent intent.
All shapes of spaces are not subject to this.
There are general designs that don't have this problem and there are people that have various practical guidelines to counteract the stampede problem.
Same with forums where people can say things.
For example a simple algorithm that does not suffer from as gross feedback effects, that facebook eliminated early on, was the timeline view of activity.
Timeline sorting did not use popularity or advertising promotion to sort items.
Would the service be usable like this, well yes, facebook was perfectly usable during the era it worked like this.
What is the hit to their bottom line if they changed their algorithm back to simple timeline sorting? Well we can guess it must be pretty big because their current algorithm seems to be pretty psychotic by comparison (in that it intentionally fans the flames of outrage with it's interaction seeking behavior) and they are willing to take all the negative PR for the sake of this interaction uplift.
No this is rhetorical judo; no one intends to ascribe moral agency to the algorithm itself. The function of an algorithm is what it does, and the moral culpability is carried by the people who designed it for, and applied it to, a given purpose causing that outcome.
We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. The full range of tools and consequences we use when assessing culpability in other damaging situations are available to us here. The fact that an algorithm was the tool of harm doesn't constrain us.
Whether or not they profit from it is also beside the point. It may make it more evil, it may change their civil liabilities to harmed parties, but it doesn't increase or decrease their responsibility for the outcomes themselves.
We fundamentally disagree on whether or not what Facebook "should" have expected or "should" have done is worth considering. I don't think it's legally relevant. Profits can demonstrate incentive that otherwise wouldn't exist.
The existing legal precedent for how algorithms are considered under tort liability [1] are still unclear. It's clear to me that allowing this lawsuit to move forward would be directly contradicting the ruling of Force v. Facebook (2019) and would force a ruling on how AI algorithms should be held liable with respect to section 230.
From the perspective of the user, making a platform liable would mean that the platform would fundamentally shift what users are allowed to post and strongly weakens basic rights to freedom of expression. It's hard to depict how different and more censored the internet would be if section 230 continues to become weakened.
"Critically, the finding that AI algorithms can be found to be harmful allows for the tort liability process to come into effect. While this kind of legal approach has not yet been taken, Patel indicates that corporate liability is a possibility. If an AI algorithm causes harm, it must be prosecuted through tort liability."
"However, in the same timeframe as Patel’s ruling in 2019, ... the Second Circuit and decided within a month of the Patel ruling where the plaintiffs, a group of U.S. citizens who were victims of a Hamas terrorist attack, sued Facebook, arguing that Facebook implicitly assisted Hamas by keeping their violence-promoting content online through their AI algorithm’s oversight. [12] However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), the rule that protects social media platforms from liability for content on their platforms, the court found that Facebook could not be found to have criminal or civil liability for content. [13] This case complicates the implications of Patel, as it found that Facebook was shielded from liability because the content itself was not created by the platform. "
[1] https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort...
Court isn't a context-free zone, they absolutely may consider what an entity did know or should have known about the future consequences of their actions. As in the different categories of negligence, which this is similar to.
Are you a lawyer why are you using their jargon so heavily? The lawyers will do that part, in the courts. Here, in this context, it's just another rhetorical flourish to distract attention away from your actual position. No one cares what a tort is just say your piece in normal words and stop trying to obscure it behind the facade of technical jargon.
The distinction you are making doesn't make sense. Are you making an analogy to the idea that you can use the word fire but you can't yell fire in a crowded place? Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. The complete weights of what is highlighted are also unique per user. You're arguing that Facebook has a duty of care, but as it stands section 230 already addresses that. The duty of care is fulfilled with good faith moderation. The only way Facebook can be found liable is if section 230 is weakened and good faith moderation is redefined.
"Tort liability indicates that someone is held accountable for wrong actions (other than under contract." Tort liability is the phrase you would search if you wanted to learn about previous legal rulings related to this. I thought the Columbia Law Review article I linked was pretty approachable. It's not possible to talk about this in a meaningful way without understanding tort. I haven't tried to obscure or distract from my position intentionally.
I think Force v. Facebook was the proper ruling. There's nothing new courts have to decide, because section 230 already addresses this. Fundamentally, people are hateful and will engage and interact with hateful content. It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I made my position clear without technical jargon in the top comment. The DW article says the lawsuit wants to legally force Facebook to change its algorithm. The change would directly be related to moderation. This would be a slippery slope. Failing to understand the limitation of what an algorithm does is the only way you could expect a separation of the concept of posting content vs posting it "like that". I hope I was able to clarify my position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-he...
They do, by having control of the algorithm. It didn't just spring forth, they made it. More relevant, they have the off switch. "Good faith moderation" means monitoring the actual results of applying it and making changes if the results are harmful.
> It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it.
I'm not blaming the algorithm, I'm blaming the people who implemented it, failed to understand the potential consequences of using it in this way, and then failed to notice or understand what was happening.
You can't just abdicate moral responsibility by putting "the algorithm" between your actions and their consequences. A for loop and a couple of if statements is an algorithm. Someone makes it, gives it input, applies the output to some task. That is the culpable action, not whatever happens inside the algorithm.
Like and Dislikes are only as valuable as users allow them to be. A great counterexample to many of your arguments is the social media site we are discussing this topic on. The culture on Hacker News de-emphasizes Likes and Dislike. Comment karma is visible to the poster, but to a reader, a +100 karma comment is equal to a +4 karma comment with the only difference being what is seen first. I personally forget about that and end up reading comments to the end of threads I enjoy anyway.
I think letting such hostility build for the concept of social media is as damaging as any political extremism the censorship is supposed to combat. It feels like the extremism isn't gone, just redirected. Social media and the internet has changed who people interact with, not just how. In the past extreme ideas existed, but were tempered because of others around them. Social media has allowed people to choose to only listen to people with the same perspective, letting extreme ideas go uncontrolled. You can argue that it's the fault of the technology, but the main responsibility falls on the individuals.
Social media doesn't make people hateful, it makes it easier for hateful people to convince other to think like them. Bullies have existed long before social media and continue to exist in every context.
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ranks-the-world-int...
It is not reasonable to moderate to a certain level in a few locations, thereby implicitly acknowledging such moderation is important, while then letting other "gardens" in other parts of the world run wild and untended.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
Once the moderation has begun and leaders in the company have acknowledged that it is necessary for the good of the platform and the communities in which it operates, it ceases to become reasonable to say "oh well, what we meant was, moderation is needed where the profile is highest or will cause the most political/societal blow-back if we don't".
Facebook mining and profiting from harvesting political user data shows a direct conflict of interest between keep data private and making money. When Facebook is used as a platform by hate groups, I can't see how they would meaningfully profit from it. Saying that encouraging or ignoring it would increase userbase is very short sighted, at the bare minimum it would caused the group being targeted to leave.
These situations feel more like the debate of whether ISPs are a public utility and the EARN IT act and section 230. Holding Facebook 100% accountable would set a very dangerous precedent. Facebook is not an entity and without showing hateful posts/comments were highlighted while alternatives were not, this feels like an argument against math.
Popular posts reflect the interests of the vocal population. Assigning morality to the math used in an algorithm is a failure to understand the purpose or function of it. "Inciting" would means the algorithm promoted a hateful post despite the underlying signals saying it shouldn't be promoted.