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?
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).
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.