Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by Cookingboy on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:42PM
(#42740999)
>the act of organizing and strategically disseminating the speech is not speech
It is, and the court acknowledged that editorial control is protected speech.
The ruling was made based on data privacy ground, not First Amendment Speech ground.
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by joshfee on Friday January 17, 2025 @01:14PM
(#42741457)
The case law around editorial control is at odds with most platforms' section 230 protection, which makes the fact that TikTok argued that its algorithm _is_ speech pretty different from how most platforms have argued to date (in order to preserve their section 230 protections)
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by gmd63 on Friday January 17, 2025 @01:27PM
(#42741630)
I've understood that social media companies deliberately do not identify as editors because they don't want to be responsible for generated feeds of users. Is this wrong? This is why I'm asking to see evidence of a specific person from a social media company taking direct responsibility over a user's consumed content.
For anyone who does consider these algorithms speech, I challenge you to share a single person at any social media company who has taken direct responsibility over a single content feed of an individual user. How can speech exist if nobody is willing to take ownership of it?