Even if it was, that could have the same effect. If they test every change and only keep the ones that don't harm Musk's visibility that is in effect making the algorithm consider Musk specially.
Seems like that would could even be considered hardcoding - Buy Twitter Blue get higher on replies on threads.
Which would be a good point to argue, and a good distinction for the law to make, but Google's defense is that even a deliberately pro-ISIS algorithm would be exempt under 230. From the article:
>>They argue that in an internet brimming with content, there is literally no way to present things that doesn’t involve some deliberate prioritizing of what to show. Taking their argument to its logical extreme, Google’s lawyers even claimed that Section 230 would protect a platform against suit over a deliberately pro-ISIS algorithm.
That they asserted that any algorithm would be legal doesn't tell us that their case stands or falls on that assertion alone.
At the same time they are lobbying congress to keep 230 the way it is but do what I wrote as a compromise if they have to.
They just don't want to lose Section 230 protection because it would mean the end of user generated content. Without 230 protections, every user submission would have to be reviewed before going live, even here.
Yep. And if that goes, then the last major good thing about the web will be destroyed. Or second-to-last, since some real people still actually do still put up their own noncommercial websites.
Actually, I think its probably "find content that will maximise monetisation through more engagement for this user".
This is where Twitter could get into hot water -- if the code that was released is accurate, they were specifically promoting tweets by certain people and with certain content. They can't claim "it's just the algorithm" because their algorithm is intentionally biased based on the content itself.