[HN Gopher] Supreme Court allows Reddit mods to anonymously defe...
___________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court allows Reddit mods to anonymously defend Section 230
Author : taubek
Score : 126 points
Date : 2023-01-22 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| Bystander22 wrote:
| There were some interesting observations on r/law, particularly
| this one:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/10h9vju/supreme_court_...
|
| From there:
|
| >The issue has been muddied by sites like reddit who have been
| keen to play up outlandish possibilities of individual users or
| volunteer moderators becoming liable, which has never been a
| likely outcome of this case. The bigger and more realistic threat
| to a site like reddit is the possibility that actions taken by
| tools like automoderators, slur filters, or recommendation
| algorithms (e.g., sorting by "hot") might become legally
| analogous to editorial decisions.
|
| >Because those tools are sometimes set up by moderators and
| influenced by user actions (e.g. voting/reporting), there are
| sort of fringe or edge-case scenarios where the lines could
| potential blur between algorithmic policies and user/moderator
| actions. But we as users don't really need to worry too much
| about every conceivable edge-case legal theory, because a site
| like reddit would presumably be incentivized to remove or disable
| any tools that could create such a liability, to protect Reddit's
| own self-interest.
|
| >The algorithms that keep people clicking/viewing/refreshing the
| site are critical to the business interests of sites like Reddit
| and Youtube. It's really important for reddit's bottom line to
| have broad latitude to gamify user engagement by showing more of
| what will keep people on reddit longer and more-frequently.
| That's a less flattering PR angle than playing up the possibility
| that reddit users or mods could get in legal trouble.
|
| >It's not so much that there is no possible way that any
| ramification of this case could ever put a user or a mod of a
| site like reddit in any jeopardy in any conceivable
| scenario...It's more like, sites like Reddit have a lot to lose
| if their algorithmic recommendations should become legally
| analogous to editorial decisions.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| [flagged]
| orra wrote:
| > noting that sped-up clinical trials for vaccines might be
| missing some issues related to vaccine efficacy and side
| effects, there's a problem.
|
| Clinical trials weren't sped up: there's your problem.
| edgyquant wrote:
| stop cherry picking, the crust of that persons comment is
| about censorship
| orra wrote:
| We're talking about private (not government) censorship of
| _inaccurate_ information.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Not to go to far off topic, but:
|
| https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319
|
| > "Operation Warp Speed was a federal effort that supported
| multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates to speed up development.
| We analyzed the program's vaccine candidates and found that
| their development followed traditional practices, with some
| adaptations. For example, some clinical trial phases
| overlapped with each other and with animal studies to
| accelerate development."
|
| Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the
| clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have
| much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of
| symptoms was clearly reduced).
|
| This discussion would have led to a perma-ban on the main
| Covid subreddits, I believe.
| orra wrote:
| > For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with
| each other and with animal studies to accelerate
| development.
|
| Right, but GP was misrepresenting this. Having phases 1 and
| 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a
| risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the
| length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased
| risk of dangerous vaccines for the public.
|
| > Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the
| clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have
| much effect in preventing transmission (although severity
| of symptoms was clearly reduced).
|
| I don't think measuring reduction in transmission is a
| primary concern of vaccine trials? It also seems quite hard
| to do, without a significant proportion of the population
| being vaccinated.
| edgyquant wrote:
| >Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly
| going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2
| participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2
| or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous
| vaccines for the public.
|
| Irrelevant "actually"ing after being objectively wrong.
| Don't cherry pick to shutdown a conversation: and if you
| do don't be wrong in your attack.
| orra wrote:
| > and if you do don't be wrong in your attack.
|
| OP was clearly said the trials were sped up and that
| compromised safety. That's nonsense.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Clinical trials are phased for very good reasons, AFAIK:
|
| phase 1 is for safety
|
| phase 2 is for efficacy
|
| phase 3 is for dosage
|
| They're not the same. Shortening Phase 1 is automatically
| a compromise with safety.
| orra wrote:
| Phase 1 wasn't shortened. And all stages assess safety.
| swimfar wrote:
| Were the duration of the phases shortened? The quote
| makes it sound like the duration was kept the same, just
| that the following phase started before the end of the
| previous phase.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I'm not sure which "quote" you're talking about. I
| carefully did not say Phase 1 was shortened.
|
| The reason for sequencing, in the abstract, would be that
| if Phase 2 looks like "hey, this thing really works!"
| then the pressure to approve it would become
| irresistible. Whereas if Phase 1 finds unacceptable side
| effects, then Phase 2 would never start.
|
| Note again that I'm not saying that's what happened.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| > A far better option is to rely entirely on a transparent
| algorithmic model, in which automated tools like lists of
| trigger keywords and contextual analysis that cause posts to be
| flagged for further review are clearly visible to the user
| audience.
|
| This is the worst idea I've read on HN and shows you've never
| actually dealt with users at scale.
|
| The moment your algorithm is visible, users will know how to
| beat it. Your list of 'trigger keywords' becomes a weapon both
| to harass normal users (by potentially tricking them into
| writing the trigger weapons) as well as by trolls because they
| know exactly how to modify the word to get around the filter.
|
| Social media is no different from a game, and when people
| figure out how a game works, they learn how to break it.
| xbar wrote:
| I fear a ruling where the interpretation of Section 230 puts dang
| at risk of liability for all of his necessary and appropriate
| historic moderation.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This Court case largely isn't about that; the protections for
| moderation Section 230 grants are largely not in question here.
|
| The question is whether an automated algorithm is protected by
| 230 in the same sense that manual moderation is. To the extent
| this _might_ impact HN, it 'd be more along the lines of "HN
| weights stories too heavily by (upvotes, time of post, some
| other metric) and as a result harm has occurred."
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Weakening Section 230 doesn't just put dang at risk, it puts
| every HN user that takes an action which alters the visibility
| of content, like flagging.
| [deleted]
| hgsgm wrote:
| That's not true. Section 230 is based on a principle that
| _someone_ is responsible for the content a post, and creators
| and publishers don 't get to both deflect responsibility to
| the other.
|
| Next, YC would be the relevant entity, not dang personally.
| (But that's a minor point because dang is part of YC. )
|
| The difference between you and YC is that YC actually
| collects posts and re- publishes them.
|
| Users simply tell YC if they like a post or not. They don't
| transmit the post content to anyone.
|
| YC decides whether to grey a post or remove it, or keep it.
| Showing a post higher or lower on a page doesn't mean
| anything related to whether the post violates some law and
| someone needs to be held responsible.
|
| Reddit mods are closer, since they have specific power to ban
| a post or poster.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Section 230 is based on a principle that someone is
| responsible for the content a post
|
| No, its not. Law predating section 230 is based on the
| principal that _lots_ of people can be responsible for
| published content.
|
| Section 230 is based on the conclusion that certain of
| those rules making people liable are inappropriate in the
| online context; particularly those that would give any
| active moderators of content liability as publishers, which
| does not depend on actual knowledge of the illegality of
| any content. These rules _were_ being applied to both sites
| _and_ users other than the creator when section 230 was
| adopted, which is why it explicilty protects both operators
| and users.
|
| Section 230 doesn't he impact the liability of creators at
| all
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Perhaps Section 230 shouldn't extend to sites with
| anonymity. If somebody is harmed then somebody should be
| liable.
|
| An issue is you have anons causing harm to users who cannot
| be sued and the platform also cannot be sued. No good.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Perhaps Section 230 shouldn't extend to sites with
| anonymity. If somebody is harmed then somebody should be
| liable.
|
| The creator is liable even if they are anonymous.
|
| There is a difference between someone being liable and it
| being easy to identify who they are. (And, even if the
| site owner isn't liable, a John Doe suit against the
| anonymous user can be a framework within which to
| subpoena the site owner for records which help to
| identify the liable user.)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I don't like that. If the user cannot be held liable for
| whatever reason it needs to fall on the site. I don't
| like that people can be harmed without recourse. There is
| little incentive for the site to run communities that
| aren't toxic.
| luckylion wrote:
| There's little incentive for good moderation, and there's
| little cost for any moderation, which makes sites
| business models work.
|
| I agree with you that it has gaps and ugly side effects,
| but it also has the effect that a lot of things are
| working because you're not by default responsible for
| them because they've been commented on your server.
| bobmaxup wrote:
| From the article, what Reddit is arguing:
|
| > "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act famously
| protects Internet platforms from liability, yet what's
| missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects
| Internet users--everyday people--when they participate in
| moderation like removing unwanted content from their
| communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts," a
| Reddit spokesperson told Ars.
| DanAtC wrote:
| Reddit is afraid they'll be held responsible for the
| actions of moderators they have no control over. Their
| business model is at risk so they're spinning it as
| something that threatens their users.
| [deleted]
| mrkstu wrote:
| Reddit has exactly as much control over moderators as
| their own policies dictate, which they can change at any
| time.
| aobdev wrote:
| Honestly that sounds like fear-mongering, Reddit wants to
| protect its interests by turning the public against
| section 230 reform.
| vxNsr wrote:
| It specifically doesn't put any user at any more risk than
| we're already at. s230 protects hn from liability, it doesn't
| protect you, the user from liability.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Yeah, to my understanding you can currently be held liable
| for what you post online, but the platform can't be in
| trouble for distributing it.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It is interesting to read HN comments demanding more laws and
| regulations and restrictions on how social media operates.
| Usually the commenters are unaware that HN is a social media.
|
| HN has algorithmic ranking, it has invisible moderation, it has
| shadowbanning (sort of), and it has YC sponsored ads injected
| into the "feed" that get special treatment relative to user
| submissions.
|
| Many regulation proposals seem to have carve outs for sites and
| networks below a certain size, but if one past without such
| exceptions then a lot of the community sites we know and love
| would have no choice but to shut down.
|
| I suspect a lot of the proponents of these regulations aren't
| really interested in seeing the sites they like subjected to
| these regulations. It has almost become a talking point about
| punishing social media companies people don't like _others_
| using.
| ip26 wrote:
| Good moderation & ranking is nearly invisible, like good
| email spam filtering. We forget (or never even knew) just how
| much we depend on it.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| It isn't to the people who get actions taken against their
| commentary that they deem restrictive, though. And while
| the average person will simply take the moderation action
| with a grain of salt, I've been in a situation before where
| I've had to recommend en-masse banning of people who
| originally had constructive comments that I largely agreed
| with.
| bioemerl wrote:
| If you held YC liable for its user content it would be
| broadly alright because YC has very very good moderation and
| for the most part bad stuff gets taken care of very quickly.
| treis wrote:
| But none of these things are what Google is accused of doing.
| Google is accused of recommending pro-ISIS videos to someone
| who ended up killing a bunch of people. Which is not really
| what 230 was meant to protect against.
|
| 230 is there to enable the existence of online platforms.
| It's not there to let Google wring every dollar out of
| YouTube they can, damn the societal consequences.
| MBCook wrote:
| The worry is that the decision will be far more expensive.
| More like using this case as an excuse to do what they
| wanted to.
|
| Much like Dobbs or a number of other recent cases.
| archgoon wrote:
| > it has shadowbanning (sort of)
|
| In what sense does HN have shadow banning (sort of)?
| krapp wrote:
| In the sense that HN has shadowbanning, but it's publicly
| reversible, so it's only sort of shadowbanning.
| prettyStandard wrote:
| I'm pretty new here. Can you elaborate? Edit: On the "necessary
| and appropriate historic moderation" part.
| Aaron2222 wrote:
| dang is the moderator here.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| The claim by some is that 230 protections shouldn't apply if
| the site at all influences what is shown to other users -
| essentially, moderation. There's all sorts of made up
| distinctions between publisher and web site (most of it
| disingenuous) but it generally boils down to various
| political factions upset that the "wrong" sort of content
| isn't moderated away, or the "right" sort of content is.
| Which is right or wrong depends on how you lean politically.
| Retric wrote:
| The desire for protection isn't the same as saying 230
| actually applies. The case made it to the Supreme Court
| because it isn't clear where exactly the law does and does
| not apply.
|
| User content and the promotion of user content are
| different things. If Facebook picks a specific message out
| of the billions posted they can find basically any message
| ever said. The choice of a handful of messages to post on a
| TV commercial moves the message from user content to
| Facebook's message.
|
| Legally 230 could be limited to direct content and it's
| moderation (removal) but not cover manual curation.
| Similarly purely algorithmic feeds may be yet another
| meaningful distinction.
|
| It's a surprisingly complicated topic and I doubt the
| Supreme Court will make a broad ruling covering every case.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Funnily enough DMCA 512 already works this way. If you
| manually curate a content feed you lose your copyright
| safe harbor. So you're actually incentivized to remain
| willfully blind to certain aspects of how your site is
| being used. The Copyright Office has been complaining
| about this and arguing that we should pull _all_
| recommendation systems outside of the copyright safe
| harbor.
|
| I kind of disagree with this. It would make both safe
| harbors kind of nonsensical, because we're incentivizing
| platforms to keep their systems broken. We understand
| that free speech on the Internet requires a minimal
| amount of censorship: i.e. we have to delete spam in
| order for anyone else to have a say. But one of the ways
| you can deal with spam _is to create a curated feed of
| known-good content and users_.
|
| Keep in mind too that "purely algorithmic feeds" is not a
| useful legal standard. Every algorithm has a bias. Even
| chronological timelines: they boost new posts and punish
| old news. And social media companies change the algorithm
| to get the result they want. YouTube went from watch time
| to engagement metrics and now uses neural networks that
| literally nobody understands beyond "it gives better
| numbers". And how exactly do you deal with an
| "algorithmic" feed with easter eggs like "boost any post
| liked by this group of people"?
|
| The alternative would be to do what the Copyright Office
| wants, and take recommendation systems out of the
| defamation and copyright safe harbors entirely. However,
| if we did this, these laws would _only_ protect bare web
| hosts. If you had a bad experience with a company and you
| made a blog post that trended on Facebook or Twitter,
| then the company could sue Facebook or Twitter for
| defamation. And they would absolutely fold and ban your
| post. Even Google Search would be legally risky to
| operate fairly. Under current law, the bad-faith actor in
| question at least have to make a plausible through-line
| between copyright law and your post to get a DMCA 512
| notice to stick.
| Retric wrote:
| By purely algorithmic systems I mean something like the a
| hypothetical Twitter timeline showing the top 4 tweets of
| everyone you've followed in purely chronological order.
| Or a Reddit feed purely based on submission time and
| upvotes.
|
| A curated feed being something like the current HN front
| page where websites from specific manually chosen domains
| are penalized.
|
| I am not saying there is anything inherently wrong with
| curation, it may simply to reflect what users want.
| However, as soon as you start making editorial decisions
| it's no longer purely user generated content. Which was
| the distinction I was going for, it's still an algorithm
| just not a blind one.
|
| > Every algorithm has a bias.
|
| Using upvotes, deduplicating, or penalizing websites
| based on the number of times they have been on the front
| page in the last week definitely has bias, but it isn't a
| post specific bias targeted by the website owner. I agree
| the lines aren't completely clear, when you start talking
| AI the story specific bias can easily be in how the AI
| was trained, but I suspect something that flags child
| porn would be viewed differently than something that
| promotes discrimination against a specific ethnic group.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > if the site at all influences what is shown to other
| users - essentially, moderation
|
| Which is bizarre, given the legislative history of Section
| 230, whose entire point was to protect and encourage
| private censorship by sites and users.
| intrasight wrote:
| Section 230s entire point is to encourage online
| communities
| triceratops wrote:
| You can't have a healthy online community without
| moderation. It gets overrun by spammers, trolls, off-
| topic conversations, and flamewars. Moderation is the
| reason that all of us are here instead of Usenet or
| 4chan.
| intrasight wrote:
| Exactly. While in some ways moderation and censorship are
| synonymous, the intent is different. Moderation is
| necessary for healthy communities - online and offline.
| luckylion wrote:
| They didn't say anything about 'healthy' though. Reddit,
| Twitter and Facebook have lots of trolls, off-topic
| conversations and flamewars (and spammers aren't that
| rare either), and yet they thrive.
| hgsgm wrote:
| What parent meant to mean is that "the claim by some is
| that section 230 is bad/unconstitutional and should be
| removed".
|
| > A key protection shielding social media companies from
| liability for hosting third-party content--Section 230 of
| the Communications Decency Act--is set to face its first
| US Supreme Court challenge.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Rules will probably limited to communities over a certain size,
| larger than that of HN I would bet.
| ecf wrote:
| > Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the
| content that Reddit displays is "primarily driven by humans--not
| by centralized algorithms."
|
| Reddit's entire business model is Astroturfing-as-a-service, so I
| don't believe this for a second.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Ding ding ding. Being forced to reveal this information is why
| they'll never IPO.
| DannyBee wrote:
| FWIW - The supreme court generally will allow just about any
| amicus brief.
|
| So this is not particularly special in that respect.
| Sunspark wrote:
| There are some great Reddit mods, but there are also some truly
| awful ones and the corporation does not have a proper arbitration
| process for managing things.
|
| Example fictional scenario, but entirely plausible as variations
| of this do play out, on a computing sub you could write "I like
| Windows" and the Apple Mac-loving Reddit mod could immediately
| ban you. No rules were broken, you just expressed a contrary
| opinion to theirs and that is it. So if you wish to continue
| participating in that sub, you would need to generate and use an
| alt account.
|
| Reddit threatens that having more than 1 account is against
| policy. Ignore this. You are the product on a free platform that
| generates corporate revenue through ads and selling digital
| awards, etc. If you do not engage with the platform by putting up
| posts and writing comments, there is less incentive for others to
| come visit as well, and ad impressions will diminish, revenue
| will diminish, etc. They will not actively seek out preventing
| access to the site if you are not breaking any laws or upsetting
| users. Do not get invested in accounts, were you to die tomorrow,
| nobody at all would remember you or care about anything you wrote
| there.
|
| It is negligent on the part of Reddit to not have a proper
| arbitration process to grieve improper content moderation on the
| part of mods.
|
| So yes, Reddit absolutely does take an active and direct hand in
| promoting the visibility of anything on the platform and should
| not be exempt from section 230. I am active in a sub that every
| day sees a lot of posts that I find interesting deleted by the
| mods. They are just curating. Sometimes things are deleted for
| the dumbest of reasons. Corporate interests come into play too. I
| remember the other month when Kanye said that Kim Kardashian and
| CP3 got together while both were married, the NBA Reddit mods for
| over 24 hours were ACTIVELY deleting every single post mentioning
| or linking to that. It was certainly basketball news, it was
| certainly salacious. Why was this happening? Good question! Was
| the suppression due to receiving an order from the NBA? Was it
| under orders from Reddit Corporate? Was it just simply a group of
| Reddit mods working overnight in a coffee shop deleting posts? It
| was far too targeted and for too long a time period to not be an
| active attempt at speech suppression until it was already out on
| too many other news sites, at which time an "approved" site like
| TMZ would be allowed through where they could presumably get ad-
| click impressions from diminished traffic to their story about
| it. They should tell the Supreme Court who gave the orders to
| suppress the Kanye story on a sub with 6 million+ subscribed
| accounts. You see this news-story preferences on other subs too,
| where some sites seemingly often have their links given
| preferential treatment, and others do not get to come through.
| Why? Is there a kickback? I don't know, but stories coming
| through are worth money as traffic is directed.
|
| I love old Reddit, but I despise how it was set up to have little
| anonymous dictators for life seemingly entrenched forever in
| their little fiefdoms. No elections, no votes, no recourse other
| than having more than 1 account.
|
| If Reddit is serious about wanting exemption from section 230,
| then if they want to be a social commons with community
| moderation they need to implement an arbitration process OR allow
| users to hold elections on which mods they want to represent them
| for fixed terms.
|
| Dictators-for-life from anonymous mods (who also have alt
| accounts and are probably Reddit employees on the largest subs)
| is not it.
|
| The anonymous mods giving Supreme Court testimony should state
| whether or not they are now, or have ever been an employee of
| Reddit or its investors or associated companies.
| theknocker wrote:
| [dead]
| LinuxBender wrote:
| RFC 2119 agrees [1] as does US law [2] _with exception of
| Illinois apparently._ Seems to be ill defined and not preferred
| in the UK, sometimes deemed _inappropriate_ [3]. Perhaps the UK
| will interpret as per RFC-6919 [4] instead.
|
| _1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean
| that the definition is an absolute requirement of the
| specification._
|
| [1] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
|
| [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall
|
| [3] - https://www.law-office.co.uk/art_shall-1.htm
|
| [4] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919
| honkler wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| montron wrote:
| [flagged]
| paulpauper wrote:
| The notion of Reddit mods being selfless unpaid volunteers is
| misleading. They wield considerable power, and it's a desired
| position. Also, mods have been known to engage in payola and
| other deception for personal gain/profit. And too many arbitrary
| rules, too many shadow bans/deletions, etc.
| notatoad wrote:
| it's crazy to me that reddit doesn't have staff doing the
| moderation job for the bigger subreddits. most of the content
| on the front page is from 5-10 subreddits which are all
| moderated by the same super-moderators, who effectively set the
| policy for what content is allowed and not allowed. and they do
| it with complete autonomy and independence.
|
| either that, or the few anonymous people who run reddit
| actually are reddit staff, and reddit prefers to keep the
| appearance of subreddits being "community-run" because
| unpopular mod actions can be swept away by retiring a
| moderator's profile.
| water-your-self wrote:
| They generally prefer to retire whole subreddits
| jeoqn wrote:
| They don't have to pay anybody... there's no shortage of
| people who are more than happy to wield the power of being a
| mod and share the political and corporate values of the
| Reddit staff.
|
| Not to mention Reddit doesn't have as many legal
| responsibilities over them if they don't pay them I guess.
| Bystander22 wrote:
| And Reddit is paying some moderators. It's called the Community
| Builders Program; they are mostly paying people to moderate UK-
| and India-specific subs. US $20/hour; most volunteer mods know
| nothing about this but it's in the open.
|
| Article: https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/4418715794324-C...
|
| Announcement for India mods:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianMods/comments/w4k4y4/launchin...
|
| Discussion about UK mods:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/RoyalsGossip/comments/xfn4t2/adminr...
|
| This is an initiative of the new VP of Community:
| https://communityvalidated.co/community-lessons/reddit-a-gli...
| beej71 wrote:
| I don't think this changes the point, which is, "If I moderate
| a forum--even for free--what is my exposure to liability from
| things people post to that forum?"
| [deleted]
| medellin wrote:
| I believe reddit has been a part although its hard to say how
| big of ones it's played in further diving people. It's in my
| experience the worst social media at putting you inside a
| completely one sided bubble with twitter as a very close
| second.
|
| Part of that being downvote is just used as i disagree with you
| even when you are adding a valid but different view to the
| conversation. I don't use reddit anymore outside of trying to
| find recommendations for products but even that is being gamed
| now.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Not to mention the obvious political bias in many subs that
| state they are neutral and objective.
| robswc wrote:
| That is one of my biggest issues with Reddit. One big
| gaslighting operation. Even if you agree with 9/10 opinions,
| If you disagree with one, you are made out to be an "other"
| and an adversary.
|
| Just look at how dis-functional it can be, even when everyone
| is on board with the same basic principals (r/antiwork)
| bitlax wrote:
| Ghislaine Maxwell was a power mod.
| srj wrote:
| If you haven't already I recommend reading the text of section
| 230. It's very short and takes only a minute or two:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
| badrabbit wrote:
| I don't think it should be repealed but its protections should
| only apply to users and content providers acting in good faith
| and best effort to proactively prevent harmful content. Revenge
| porn for a moderate example: not verifying the provenance if
| the content and validity of the submitter by the porn site or
| users who knowningly upvote or positively comment should not be
| protected. There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill
| of site owners and users. Look at twitter with elon changing
| policy with allowing harmful content but reducing its reach. He
| is able to do that due to this law.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a
| subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into
| account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of
| social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets
| all needs fairly and clearly.
|
| I wonder how many there even use social media, and I'm especially
| concerned that the Court is now oriented toward, and many members
| selected for, partisanship. They are there to find partisan
| advantage in rulings, not to be legal geniuses with deep
| commitment and knowledge of justice and fairness, with deep
| judicial temperment - there are not there as Solomons. That puts
| them at a loss for complex issues, expecially unfamiliar ones,
| though I'm sure they will find a partisan angle.
|
| Whatever your politics: The reactionary conservative movement,
| with its campaign to politicize everything (now working on the
| FBI and Department of Justice, for example), has permanently
| degraded the country; we won't have these institutions back for
| generations. People don't want to face the loss, but it's already
| happened and continues to worsen before our eyes.
|
| EDIT: People who support politicization (or corruption or
| disinformation or other damaging behavior) argue to normalize it
| - it's always that way, everyone does it, it's unavoidable, it's
| 'human nature'. I have warmongers now telling me that it's
| inevitable human nature. But that's not the case; we can have
| meaningfully less or more partisanship (especially in courts),
| corruption, disinformation, and warfare. I can see it with my own
| eyes now; I was here before 2016, and I know about other places
| and times and people. It's a bunch of nonsense and everybody
| knows it.
|
| We control our fate, through knowledge and reason, through a
| collective commitment to good. Our predecessors did it, without
| the institutions and mechanisms and knowledge they bequeathed to
| us. With our inheritance couldn't have it easier; what are we
| bequeathing to the next generation? Despair? Corruption and war?
| What a shame that would be, with all we were given.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| What do you mean that it is _now_ oriented towards
| partisanship? This has been true for at least a century. The
| recent Dobbs decision is as much the result of partisan efforts
| to institute policy opposed by the majority of the country as
| the original Roe decision was.
|
| The court has handled complex technical issues many times
| before. This, along with partisanship, is nothing new.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > The recent Dobbs decision is as much the result of partisan
| efforts to institute policy opposed by the majority of the
| country as the original Roe decision was.
|
| It's not just one decision, but would you provide support for
| that claim? Dobbs was decided by conservatives put on the
| court specifically to make that decision, which they executed
| promptly, along with other conservative priorities. Roe was
| decided by conservatives also, and they weren't put on the
| court to rule on abortion.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| > Roe was decided by conservatives
|
| Roe was decided by the Burger court, which, according to
| Wikipedia, "is generally considered to be the last liberal
| court to date". It was heavily based on a Griswold v.
| Connecticut precedent by the Warren court, generally agreed
| to be the most liberal Supreme Court in US history. Both of
| these verdicts were and continue to be widely criticized by
| conservatives as being based on extremely dubious
| reasoning. I don't know what made you think that Roe was
| "decided by conservatives".
|
| There is a lot historical revisionism involved around these
| issues, with many people making blatantly false claims,
| either lying, or being themselves mistaken. The result is
| that people who have not lived through it, or who have not
| studied the history diligently, are very much misled as to
| the facts, because the media, which is very good and active
| at correcting lies and falsehoods spread by conservatives,
| takes approximately zero efforts to correct falsehoods
| spread by liberals (often it in fact acts with clear intent
| of spreading misapprehensions, by selective reporting and
| careful omission of facts).
| gcanyon wrote:
| "last liberal court" -- it remains the case that 6 of the
| 9 justices on the court that decided Roe were put there
| by Republican Presidents.
|
| That's not a lock that they were in fact "conservative,"
| but four of them were put on the court by Nixon, and
| regarding Blackmun, "The Justice Department including
| future Chief Justice William Rehnquist investigated
| Fortas at the behest of President Richard Nixon who saw
| the idea of removing Fortas as a chance to move the Court
| in a more conservative direction, and Attorney General
| John N. Mitchell pressured Fortas into resigning."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas
|
| So four were appointed by Nixon, who specifically had in
| mind moving the court to a more conservative stance. The
| fact that he failed miserably with Blackmun
| notwithstanding, the only thing that can honestly be said
| of the court at the time is that it was less conservative
| than courts that followed, not that it was liberal.
| mindslight wrote:
| I know it's much less convenient, but can we stop referring
| to the Republican party as "conservatives" ? In this case
| they reversed a precedent that had been in place for two
| generations, with a justification firmly rooted in
| collectivism.
| yladiz wrote:
| How would you prefer the Republican Party be referred to
| as?
| mindslight wrote:
| "Republicans" or "Republican Party" works - we don't need
| a synonym. If we really want to talk about views
| independent of the party, then let's characterize each
| view individually rather than as a group.
|
| What doesn't make sense is taking a group of positions
| that were conservative in the 70's, carrying them into
| the current day after society has changed significantly,
| and then talking about them as if they still represent a
| slowing of change rather than a radical departure.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Didn't Dobbs return the decision to the states? Isn't having
| the decision decided by majority vote the least partisan
| thing you can do by definition?
|
| If they had truly taken a partisan stance, they would have
| unilaterally decided to ban abortion based on specious
| reasoning not unlike Roe.
| epakai wrote:
| The decision was (more or less) up to individuals before. A
| state decision is inherently more partisan.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| I don't think that most people would agree that
| anarcholibertarianism (the system which allocates least
| decisions to state) is the least "partisan" option.
| That's not what people understand by partisanship.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| After Dobbs the US is more like the EU.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I think we all know very well the partisanship involved,
| despite the theoretical questions (which might be
| interesting in another context).
|
| Majority rule is the most partisan thing.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > Isn't having the decision decided by majority vote the
| least partisan thing you can do by definition?
|
| If one party believes something to be an individual right
| and another party believes it to be a matter for
| collective/state decision, then no.
|
| (Not that the Democratic party fully sees abortion as an
| individual right of the mother - after all, the Roe v. Wade
| decision did not really consider it as such, nor did it
| legitimize abortion throughout the pregnancy term; and the
| Democratic party generally supports Roe v. Wade. It has
| also not tried to put the matter into federal legislation
| for the 40-odd years between Roe and Dobbs.)
| jlawson wrote:
| >The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to
| politicize everything
|
| I'm sorry but which movement came up with the slogan 'the
| personal is political'?
|
| Which one has entire academic departments dedicated to
| 'problematizing' everything from the skin color of LOTR orcs to
| dog walking?
| golemotron wrote:
| > I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle
| a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take
| into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the
| dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative
| solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly.
|
| Nope. That's what legislators do.
|
| The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether safe harbor in
| Section 230 applies to companies when they are exercising
| editorial control.
| tptacek wrote:
| Our court system routinely handles far more technical issues
| than online publishing. Like every modern country, we regulate
| everything from water reclamation to aviation.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm talking about SCOTUS. Can you give examples there? Trial
| (district) and circuit appealate courts are different -
| though they also have been politicized to degrees.
|
| Regulation is handled in the executive branch. Just because
| we regulate it, or it's tried in court, doesn't mean it's
| done well. That's the issue.
| yladiz wrote:
| Isn't regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch
| and enforcement handled by the respective department
| (sometimes executive)?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Those departments are largely executive agencies. The
| executive branch is supposed to enforce but over time it
| began to do both. The court is pulling this back now.
| blindriver wrote:
| A more important point about Reddit specifically is that when
| Reddit finally goes IPO, all the mods get ZERO. The investors and
| the engineers and all the workers at Reddit will become rich, but
| the people who do the most important work, as outlined by the
| brief, are the anonymous moderators that create the culture of
| every subreddit. They get NOTHING.
|
| I find it amazing that this hasn't been brought up by the
| moderators themselves, and they're okay getting all the outcome
| and profits from their hard work literally picked away by Reddit.
| They don't even share in the profits of the advertising revenue
| from their subreddits! It's really incredible to me.
| dmix wrote:
| > but the people who do the most important work,
|
| Strange, I thought that was the people contributing and
| curating the content, ie the posts and comments. They also do
| it for free. Should they be paid too?
| blindriver wrote:
| And to reply in a single comment:
|
| Reddit is nothing without its moderators. The moderators create
| engagement through their hard work. You can take a great topic,
| and it will die in the hands of bad mods. Reddit owes its
| entire existence to its mods.
|
| The equivalent is Twitter or TikTok's algorithm. Reddit has
| tricked thousands upon thousands of people to do the hard work
| for free.
|
| They SHOULD get paid by reddit. Or, maybe reddit should adopt
| and non-profit structure and never IPO. But the idea that all
| these reddit employees will eventually become millionaires on
| the backs of free labor is disgusting.
|
| It's funny how HN loves to shit on Lyft/Doordash/Uber for
| exploiting drivers, meanwhile if reddit mods get paid it's
| somehow dishonorable. For the record, Uber gave shares to some
| of its best drivers upon IPO.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Shows the need for digital signatures of any creative output
| of any individual.
|
| People matter too.
| secondcoming wrote:
| You'll either see subreddits add lots of mods, or culling them.
| For example, /r/ukpolitics has 22 probably-human mods [0]
|
| [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/about/moderators
| mongodooby wrote:
| What these moderators seem to crave the most is power. The
| majority of them are unemployed loners with lots of time to
| kill, who are unappreciated in real life and don't have much
| power over their own lives. So they enjoy the small sliver of
| power that Reddit gives them.
|
| There are also the agenda-pushers, who obtain moderator
| positions in order to control the narrative on Reddit. Just
| look at how certain ideological views are essentially
| uncriticizable on that site.
|
| If you can get access to the Discords (or the leaks thereof)
| where these moderators think they are discussing things in
| private, it's a fascinating insight into their culture. Some of
| them occasionally acknowledge that they're doing all this work
| for Reddit for free, though it's a somewhat taboo topic too.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| It's apparent from my limited experience there that you are
| right: some subreddits are dominated by a certain demographic
| group, and they Report anything they don't like as
| "offensive." Then the mods dutifully remove it, since they're
| only interested in pleasing their group to keep their power,
| such as it is.
|
| something, something, "power" which Lincoln apparently didn't
| say:
|
| [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-character-
| power/
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| > The majority of them are unemployed loners with lots of
| time to kill, who are unappreciated in real life and don't
| have much power over their own lives. So they enjoy the small
| sliver of power that Reddit gives them.
|
| Nailed it. Reddit went completely off the rails during the
| Pao reign. Never figured out what they get out of it apart
| from a power trip.
| Aloha wrote:
| There is more to life than just money.
|
| Reddit is the vehicle - a mere tool - people use to help build
| community around an interest - before Reddit, it was yahoo
| groups, or you had to go host your own forum somewhere.
|
| So while yes, Reddit benefits from their work and content,
| keeping reddit sustainably funded also keeps alive all of those
| communities.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This cuts both ways. If there's more to life than money, why
| not spread it around to those who create the value of the
| thing you're selling?
|
| "There's more to life than money" is used by capital owners
| to justify the exploitation of labor.
| montagg wrote:
| I imagine you're going to get a very different type of
| person moderating if they have a monetary incentive to do
| so. I don't disagree with your argument in the broad sense
| --the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else, and
| they shouldn't--but adding money to a relationship that
| doesn't have it _always_ fundamentally changes the
| relationship, and the incentive structure, and it doesn 't
| guarantee better outcomes.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I have an application to the LinkedIn group of ex-Oracle
| employees. It was ignored for months and months.
|
| Finally, I wrote to one of the admins. He apologized and
| said he had a lot of groups he was admin for, and asked,
| now which group was I talking about, again?
|
| Does LinkedIn pay their admins? Don't know.
| Aloha wrote:
| I moderate communities on telegram, I already have people
| who treat me and my mod team like we are being paid, and
| this is our full-time job, and we should be more
| responsive to their concerns. I wouldnt want to be
| actually paid and have an expectation of quality of
| service.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| This is a really charitable view of things.
|
| Most of reddit is controlled by "powermods" who mod anywhere
| from dozens to hundreds of subreddits. They collect them for
| clout and don't give the slightest damn about their
| communities, don't participate in them, don't have time to
| even spend time reading them and getting a feel for them,
| etc. They're not trained or educated in community management
| for the betterment of said community.
|
| Nobody has the sort of free time to spend moderating an
| active community, especially unpaid - and therefore they must
| be getting paid by someone other than reddit. I'm convinced
| that a large number of subreddits are moderated by accounts
| that are controlled, directly or indirectly, by advertising,
| PR, and reputation management firms - and government
| agencies, ranging from intelligence to "PR." Either directly,
| or via payoffs to promote or suppress certain subjects,
| topics, and types of posts.
|
| I think there's a reason Ghislaine Maxwell - whose father was
| an intelligence agent - was a reddit powermod.
| honkler wrote:
| [flagged]
| Aloha wrote:
| Most volunteers for any organization are neither trained or
| educated in the thing they're volunteering to do, thats why
| they're volunteers and not paid labor. As soon as you start
| putting requirements for compliance training or whathaveyou
| on volunteers, they start needing to be paid.
| wnevets wrote:
| > A more important point about Reddit specifically is that when
| Reddit finally goes IPO, all the mods get ZERO.
|
| Some mods have definitely been making money controlling the
| content that appear on the popular subs, e.g. [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/oh5o4/rtrees_nonprof...
| googlryas wrote:
| They get to moderate the discussion of the message board, which
| is what they want to do. It isn't a job - the admins actually
| get paid.
|
| Why would the moderators get anything for creating a message
| board using a free message board service?
|
| If phpBB IPOed 15 years ago, would everyone who downloaded and
| hosted an instance deserve a cut of the IPO?
| [deleted]
| robswc wrote:
| Reddit mods, for the most part, don't need money. I imagine
| there's tons that would even pay money to "remain" as a mod if
| they could.
|
| Many reddit mods are motivated by nothing more than some
| semblance of power over other people. Just look at the way one
| of the big subreddits operates:
|
| https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/931803-reddit-art-subred...
|
| I've personally been banned from a handful of subs all at once
| (due to the mod being a mod on all of them) because I argued
| with a moderator that humidity is worse than dry heat.
|
| No, they don't get "zero" - they get their purpose. Otherwise,
| they would get a job. Coincidentally, you almost have to be
| job-less or have next to no other obligations to be a mod on
| reddit. I personally created and "mod" a community that's not
| very big at all but still requires cleaning up... but I could
| never see myself justifying more than 15 minutes a day to that
| "job."
| this_user wrote:
| It hasn't been brought up, because it is ridiculous. Reddit is
| a platform to create communities, and people operating subs are
| reddit's customers. With the same logic you could argue that
| everyone posting on Twitter should have participated in their
| IPO, the same goes for Facebook, TikTok and whatever platform
| you can imagine. Why isn't Discord paying the server admins? HN
| would be nothing without people posting links. Should OP be
| paid by YCombinator for this thread?
| blindriver wrote:
| The mods are NOT the commenters. There's a difference.
| Twitter moderates its own content via algorithms. Reddit
| still has comments in the same way Twitter does. But
| moderators literally moderate the content to make sure it's
| good and engaging and THAT'S what drives reddit.
| pjot wrote:
| The mods are also moderating voluntarily.
| [deleted]
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Hah. Community management, including moderation, is a job. We
| know this because of the AOL Community Leader Project:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program
|
| I'm torn between disgust and embarrassment for the people
| providing free, unofficial support for trillion dollar tech
| companies via Reddit Requests. They literally get nothing, no
| job placement, no recognition, no pay or benefits, and no way
| to be made whole for providing services that have a real,
| demonstrable impact on company perception and operation.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's funny, but although there's not even the slightest
| thread of a relationship as the legal system would see it, we
| are in a sense "the authors of Twitter."
| World177 wrote:
| Discord does have a revenue share. [1] Elon Musk also
| recently stated that he planned to add creator monetization
| to Twitter. [2]
|
| From Discord
|
| > Good news: It's a 90/10 split! This means you, the creator,
| get to keep 90% of each monthly Server Subscription you sell,
| minus some small processing fees for legal's sake.
|
| From Elon Musk
|
| > Followed by creator monetization for all forms of content
|
| [1] https://discord.com/creators/server-subs-101-earning-
| money-o...
|
| [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589010272341340160
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| They also get to make arbitrary decisions with no
| accountability. Essentially, the site is their personal
| fiefdom. Why would they waste their time unless they are
| benefiting in some way?
| raverbashing wrote:
| Like one proeminent example some years ago (gallowb...) and
| I'm sure there are more modern ones as well
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why is there always, "but they're getting rich!"
|
| Who cares? I'm sure the mods are aware. They do it anyway
| because it's beneficial having a healthy community that they
| are also users of.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Probably the same reason people waste their time playing
| video games or reading science fiction. Scoundrels!!
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| In those cases you aren't exercising control over someone
| else's creative expression.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| You're ascribing a negative motive by establishing one
| could exist. Surely there are petty tyrants on Reddit.
| But the much simpler, most generous, and most likely
| explanation is they enjoy a hobby and enjoy fostering a
| healthy community around their hobby, and that this
| itself is a hobby of theirs. The word moderator wasn't
| invented for social media, and the role is crucial in any
| healthy intellectual community. Because your creative
| expression may very well be disruptive to everyone
| else's, and while you're free to be creative in your
| expressions in general, others are free to exclude you
| from their community. The moderator gets the unpleasant
| job of being the executor of that will.
|
| I think the most important thing is most moderators I
| know _hate_ the function of moderator. But the community
| is important enough they do it anyways.
|
| So, I guess I take it back. It's more like producing a
| video game or editing science fiction. It's work we do to
| be sure everyone can enjoy a hobby we love.
| breck wrote:
| Exactly. As soon as you get subs over 100K you get anon mods
| out there accepting bribes, kickbacks, and/or on weird power
| trips.
|
| Bravo to the mods on the tiny subs, but in my experience
| (both as a mod of a top sub and as a contributor) the anon
| mod behavior becomes 20% toxic when a sub gets popular.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Reddit has a complex ownership history. At one point Conde Nast
| actually owned Reddit as a subsidiary (majority ownership) and
| now their parent company does. I am sure it may IPO eventually
| but I'm not entirely sure the employees will make out like
| bandits
| ghufran_syed wrote:
| The same is true of parents: they "do the most important work"
| of creating and raising their children, but after they become
| adults, the parents have NO legal rights to any income from
| their children. "They get NOTHING"
|
| Is that really true in the case of parents? If not, might the
| same reasons (e.g. intrinsic motivation, non-financial rewards
| such as inter-personal bonds) possibly apply here too?
|
| I think it _would_ be interesting though to think about what
| sort of monetization structure might encourage the development
| of more healthy communities
|
| [Warning: all analogies are "wrong", but some are useful...]
| h2odragon wrote:
| > parents have NO legal rights to any income from their
| children
|
| not all parents believe that.
|
| Some people raise their kids to be their slaves. The results
| get ugly.
| willnonya wrote:
| While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit
| proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The
| majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who
| relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen
| orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but
| rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression.
|
| This is like the Stazi proclaiming support for privacy laws.
| llanowarelves wrote:
| A while back, somebody made a moderator graph, that showed what
| dozens and dozens of subreddits individual moderators
| moderated. You could see their "web".
|
| It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably
| so.
|
| It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but
| fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users,
| but the mods too.
| paulpauper wrote:
| This was way worse during Covid , I know, even though before
| Covid it was already very bad. People were banned just for
| asking questions, merely for dissenting from the narrative,
| which was constantly changing, like about masks.
| breck wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| noirbot wrote:
| I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony
| in courts for criminal trials, often to protect the identity of
| the witness and avoid the opportunity for them to be coerced or
| intimidated.
|
| I imagine often the situation is that your identity is
| verified, but just not entered into the public record?
|
| If anything, the point of it is because "we should not listen
| to cowards" is the justification for the worst kind of
| heckler's veto. It's the exact reason it was hard to get
| testimony against organized crime. If there's a good chance
| you'll be physically attacked, kidnapped, or financially ruined
| for trying to bring justice, you're simply encouraging more
| violence and threats in order to protect those already in
| power.
| breck wrote:
| > I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous
| testimony in courts for criminal trials
|
| We specifically do not. The 6th Amendment: "...to be
| confronted with the witnesses against him"
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
| ameister14 wrote:
| I don't think it's 'often' and it's only in cases where there
| is a real and credible threat of harm to the witness.
|
| While that might make it harder to go after organized crime,
| the US believes it is important that, when you are accused of
| doing something, you get to confront your accuser.
|
| There's a really interesting law review article about this
| from 2020 which gets into the idea that, through misconduct,
| a defendant can waive their right to confront the witness at
| trial. Here's a link:
| https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Freedom of Speech does not give you freedom of Anon Speech.
|
| The Supreme Court largely disagrees.
|
| https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/32/anonymous-sp...
| breck wrote:
| There is nothing in that article about right to anon speech
| in a court room. I'm assuming that was your best argument,
| proving my point.
| [deleted]
| codingdave wrote:
| To be clear, from the article: "Reddit received special
| permission from the Supreme Court to include anonymous comments
| from Reddit mods in its brief."
|
| This is not saying the court decided anything - it is just saying
| it is allowing commentary from mods to be submitted to the court,
| without knowing their identity.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I'm apparently out of the loop enough to understand all the words
| in the article but still have no idea what it's talking about.
| From context, I'm getting that it's something to do with
| volunteering and needing anonymity and immunity for when you then
| accidentally allow terrorists recruit followers? And there
| already exists law number 230 for this but the lawsuit tries to
| get it declared invalid? Can someone share maybe a short comment
| on what actually is going on here?
| jcranmer wrote:
| Ostensibly, the issue presented is this:
|
| > Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act
| immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted
| recommendations of information provided by another information
| content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive
| computer services when they engage in traditional editorial
| functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw)
| with regard to such information.
|
| The background is that the families of a victim of a terrorist
| attack are suing Google for hosting an ISIS recruitment video
| on Youtube, for which Google has clear and undisputed immunity
| because of SS230, and the plaintiffs are trying to find any
| argument they can stand on to make the suit stick (they've lost
| at all lower levels of the court).
|
| What I quoted above was the explicit question presented to
| SCOTUS, but from reading some of the actual briefs, there's
| almost no discussion of this actual question, with everyone
| instead wanting to discuss SS230 as a whole and not its narrow
| application to recommendation content.
|
| Of the briefs I did skim, I liked the US solicitor general's
| position the best: recommendations _are not_ protected by
| SS230, but it 's not enough to say that recommendation engine
| produced objectionable content, since the content itself is
| protected. Essentially, the recommendation would have to be in
| some way unreasonable, and the burden of that unreasonability
| is presumably on the plaintiff's part, and these plaintiffs are
| clearly unable or unwilling to properly make those allegations.
| i_hate_pigeons wrote:
| here
| https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_def...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-22 23:00 UTC)