Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by zer0x4d on Monday May 01, 2023 @04:22PM (#35778621)

It's not far fetched to argue that content recommendation algorithms are protected under 230, but I do recall Twitter sidebar during the 2020 elections featured original commentary under the trending tags, which definitely is speech by Twitter. Stuff like "x wrongly claimed y" or "people are protesting z due to..."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by steve_gh on Monday May 01, 2023 @04:55PM (#35779010)

Then again, if I ask for a ranking by average user rating, or alphabetically, then I (the viewer) are setting the criteria.

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 is therefore YouTube 's content.

Would it have 1st amendment protection though?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by flyingv on Monday May 01, 2023 @05:08PM (#35779192)

>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 is therefore YouTube's content.

To me it seems like a platform could easily skirt this by having users opt in to recommendations (and maybe even choose a sorting criteria option) at signup.

>Would it have 1st amendment protection though?

The 1st amendment only protects against government censorship, not private lawsuits for existing causes of action (e.g., defamation). It would be individuals (like the Gonzalez family) suing YT in a world where the recommendations were deemed to be YT's own content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by yamtaddle on Monday May 01, 2023 @05:43PM (#35779613)

> > 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 is therefore YouTube's content.

> To me it seems like a platform could easily skirt this by having users opt in to recommendations (and maybe even choose a sorting criteria option) at signup.

How does opting in make any difference, for this particular point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by flyingv on Monday May 01, 2023 @06:48PM (#35780340)

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 platform to show them), I could see platforms adding a little modal to the signup flow being like "please instruct us to show you recommendations" and maybe surfacing a few settings for that, so they could later argue the recommendations were only served at your request (and thus should get search-result-style protection).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by steve_gh on Monday May 01, 2023 @06:42PM (#35780279)

Thxs for the explanation - I'm not USAian, so I don't understand the scope of the 1st amendment

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Up next: the lawsuit threatening your YouTube watch queue by kevingadd on Monday May 01, 2023 @06:56PM (#35780446)

I wonder if there are any legal protections for what the Twitter trending list used to do - paid people to summarize the topic that was trending - vs the company itself stating its opinion on a given subject. The google search answerbox, for example, will show you an "answer" for a given query, but it's not Google's answer to the query, it's whatever the source they selected says.

[ Parent | on HN ]