Re:Judges Rule Big Tech's Free Ride on Section 230 Is Over
by cdchn on Thursday August 29, 2024 @10:59PM
(#41397383)
>Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thinks they want to see.
These algorithms aren't matching you with what you want to see, they're trying to maximize your engagement- or, its what the operator wants you to see, so you'll use the site more and generate more data or revenue. Its a fine, but extremely important distinction.
Re:Judges Rule Big Tech's Free Ride on Section 230 Is Over
by bryanrasmussen on Friday August 30, 2024 @01:40AM
(#41397970)
What the operator wants you to see also gets into the area of manipulation, hence 230 shouldn't apply - by making algorithms based on manipulation or paid for boosting companies move from impartial unknowing deliverers of harmful content into committed distributors of it.
Re:Judges Rule Big Tech's Free Ride on Section 230 Is Over
by fasa99 on Friday August 30, 2024 @04:28PM
(#41404143)
"harmful content" is such a joke word.
if a piece of text or media could harm people the military would have weaponized it long ago.
Even monty python made a satire of such a "harmful content" scenario:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qklvh5Cp_Bs
Big tech's hyperbole of the word is even more severe than Monty Pythons absurdist satire. Sadly it's not a joke.
Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thinks they want to see. Moderation (which is typically also an algorithm) tries to remove harmful content from the platform altogether.
The ruling isn't saying that Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok moderated. It's saying Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok personalised, allegedly knew about the harmful content and allegedly didn't take enough action to moderate this harmful content.