This is is where 230 comes in. Early on in the commercialization of the internet, a law was passed that protects websites from being responsible for content posted by users. There has been talk of these protections being removed or changed. Europe has something similar and may actually do something first.
I will add that I was an isp in the early days of the internet and this law was fundamental for the internet to grow and expand. I am not sure we haven’t out grown the benefits at this point, as the fear was just a couple companies who could afford lawyers would run everything, and we sort of got there anyways.
Let’s say one dude clearly owned unstuck, without these protections they could legally be responsible for things any user posts. From threats, to defamation to whatever.
The interesting thing about the current SCOTUS case, as I understand it, is that it’s not holding the platform responsible for the content, but for promoting the content. So the algorithm is like “Oh, you like Jordan Petersen, maybe you’ll like these violent Proud Boys videos!” or whatever, maybe that’s a bad theoretical example, I don’t know.
What I find much more annoying is the algo sending me to JP in the first place, without any explicit action on my part to suggest that I want some fascist dweeb content. I think YouTube’s vaunted personalized algorithm may just send fascism to everyone to see what sticks, or is simply going “this mosdef dude seems to like chess and hockey a lot, that means he’s probably a white guy and probably will want to hear about how oppressed he is as a white guy”. Fuck off.
This is how I understand the case. It’s not challenging the existence of Section 230, just defining the limits, if any.
If you can sue for harm due to extremist content like Alex Jones or ISIS being promoted, can you sue if you feel your content is under-promoted by the algorithm?
One of the things we really need is to firmly establish a fourth branch of government in the form of independent administrative agencies. We sort of have that informally, which means that SCOTUS can do all sorts of fuckery since the powers of those agencies aren’t explicitly defined.
I mean we need a constitutionally defined administrative branch of government. I’ve got an unlikely wishlist of reforms that can probably only be accomplished with a new constitution.