US "Section 230" law doesn't protect algorithm that promotes dangerous posts

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:35:03 -0400

billstatler@forum.statler.ws

In the US, we have this thing called "Section 230" that says a social site is not legally liable for the content of posts made by users. A court has now put a limitation on this:

...Several kids died taking part in the “Blackout Challenge," which Third Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz described in her opinion as encouraging users "to choke themselves with belts, purse strings, or anything similar until passing out."...

Because TikTok's For You Page (FYP) algorithm decides which third-party speech to include or exclude and organizes content, TikTok's algorithm counts as TikTok's own "expressive activity." That "expressive activity" is not protected by Section 230, which only shields platforms from liability for third-party speech, not platforms' own speech, Shwartz wrote. ...

According to Shwartz, if Nylah had discovered the "Blackout Challenge" video by searching on TikTok, the platform would not be liable, but because she found it on her FYP, TikTok transformed into "an affirmative promoter of such content."...

Ars Technica wrote the following post Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:10:55 -0700
Court: Section 230 doesn’t shield TikTok from Blackout Challenge death suit

TikTok must face claim over For You Page recommending content that killed kids.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/court-section-230-doesnt-shield-tiktok-from-blackout-challenge-death-suit/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:26:40 -0400

Bill Statler

billstatler@forum.statler.ws

I'm not sure how I feel about this. In a case like this one, where TikTok has intentionally or negligently sent kids recommendations to choke themselves, it's hard to have much sympathy for the corporation. But if this becomes a legal precedent, I can also imagine it being abused. Should we sue Facebook for promoting pro-vax or anti-vax material? Both stances are claimed to be dangerous, by different people.

Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:07:36 -0400

Bill Statler

billstatler@forum.statler.ws

Some gentle criticism of this ruling by Mike Masnick:

Third Circuit’s Section 230 TikTok Ruling Deliberately Ignores Precedent, Defies Logic

Step aside Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, there’s a new contender in town for who will give us the most batshit crazy opinions regarding the internet. …

The reasoning here is absolutely stupid. It’s taking the obviously correct point that the First Amendment protects editorial decision-making, and saying that means that editorial decision-making is “first-party speech.” And then it’s making that argument even dumber. Remember, Section 230 protects an interactive computer service or user from being treated as the publisher (for liability purposes) of third party information. But, according to this very, very, very wrong analysis, algorithmic recommendations are magically “first-party speech” because they’re protected by the First Amendment...