News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing statements?. Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by vineyardmike on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @04:26AM (#34787206)
The point is that pre-230, no one knew who was liable for comments, and 230 clarified. The tech industry needs a law detailing who is liable, the way 230 clarified.

The AI-Generated art world seems to want the prompter to be the "artist", but if you prompt bing for search... are you the "creator"? It seems unlikely. On the other hand, Microsoft is "simply" using an algorithm to rehash the existing web.. just like search results page did before, so this is no different.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by gardenhedge on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @06:42AM (#34788037)
ChatGPT is the publisher by the fact it has restrictions on your prompts. "As an AI model I can not provide..." etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by matt74827289 on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:20PM (#34794522)
Moderation of content does not imply publishing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by graeme on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:40PM (#34794794)
Someone is the publisher. It can’t be nobody
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by gardenhedge on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @05:01PM (#34796783)
Does Word moderate what I type into it? No because it's a tool. ChatGPT publishes
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by graeme on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @07:23AM (#34788346)
The web sites in search results were always liable for defamation though. And Microsoft/Google could have been had they rewritten snippets to falsely suggest a page had defamatory information (they don’t)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing stat... by dragonwriter on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @05:07PM (#34796861)
> The point is that pre-230, no one knew who was liable for comments, and 230 clarified.

That's not really true; pre-230 there waa a pretty clear idea of how, absent additional legislation, traditional publisher and distributor liability would apply to online services, and what incentives that created with regard to offering, moderating, and engaging with such services. Section 230 was very much intended to alter the economic incentives, not just to “clarify” liability.

[ Parent | on HN ]