Comment by dougmccune | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dougmccune | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For the analogy to work it's not even enough for the roads to be used to commit crimes. The roads would have to be continuously re-routing you from your intended destination and taking you down roadways filled with signs inciting violence, cult indoctrination, and lies about reality.

The algorithmic curation of all social media platforms that is intentionally built to assault users with the most distasteful, extreme lies (because it's good for engagement!) is the real problem in my view. If every social media platform stopped all algorithmic curation/recommendation and simply presented a chronological list of updates from people you follow (and did not recommend who to follow), then I think the bulk of the problem goes away.

I have no problem with free speech (even abhorrent speech). But I have a problem when a person's online experience is controlled by algorithms specifically designed to ratchet up the garbage and inundate people with hateful rhetoric.

It's pretty telling that "64 percent of people who joined an extremist group on Facebook only did so because the company’s algorithm recommended it to them" according to facebook's own research into divisiveness. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...

With all the discussion about Section 230, could such opaque algorithmic curation constitute a form of editorial control, not unlike that of a publisher? Could we reform Section 230 in a way that is pro-user, so if a website wishes to be a "platform" they would have to make their raw feed available to the user, or if they provide algorithmic curation, it's transparent to the user how information is prioritized? Could we clarify the distinction between platform and publisher?

> Could we reform Section 230 in a way that is pro-user, so if a website wishes to be a "platform" they would have to make their raw feed available to the use

That's not reforming 230, that's abolishing it and repudiating it's entire purpose. Enabling host action to suppress perceived-as-undesirable content without increasing host liability for content not removed was the purpose of 230.

> Could we clarify the distinction between platform and publisher?

The distinction in 230 is crystal clear: to the extent content items are user-generated, the online service provider (land other users, even if they may have the power to promote, demote, or suppress the content are not publishers or speakers, period, the end.

The source (whether it is the user that is the source or the service provider for it's internally-generated, first-party content) is the publisher or speaker.

Fortunately, the source is easily and transparently held responsible for their actions....

Wow. That is an amazing statistic- I find it hard to accept that the average person would be influenced by social media to that extent but that type of study result is undeniable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com