Hacker News Reader

Comment by SilasX | Hacker News Reader

>I think the crux of the issue here is that the recommendation algorithm isn't built to say "find ISIS material and promote it". It says "find content that will generate more engagement for this user".

Which would be a good point to argue, and a good distinction for the law to make, but Google's defense is that even a deliberately pro-ISIS algorithm would be exempt under 230. From the article:

>>They argue that in an internet brimming with content, there is literally no way to present things that doesn’t involve some deliberate prioritizing of what to show. Taking their argument to its logical extreme, Google’s lawyers even claimed that Section 230 would protect a platform against suit over a deliberately pro-ISIS algorithm.

View on HN

When making legal arguments you'll often do things like: "this recommendation algorithm is legal because any algorithm would be legal, but even if you don't accept this then this algorithm is legal because it didn't consider the content of the video in making a recommendation, but even if you don't accept this then..."

That they asserted that any algorithm would be legal doesn't tell us that their case stands or falls on that assertion alone.

Sure, they want to argue the most extreme interpretation of 230 to get the court to either side with them completely or "compromise" by getting to what I wrote.

At the same time they are lobbying congress to keep 230 the way it is but do what I wrote as a compromise if they have to.

They just don't want to lose Section 230 protection because it would mean the end of user generated content. Without 230 protections, every user submission would have to be reviewed before going live, even here.

> Without 230 protections, every user submission would have to be reviewed before going live, even here.

Yep. And if that goes, then the last major good thing about the web will be destroyed. Or second-to-last, since some real people still actually do still put up their own noncommercial websites.

I don't think that they made this argument because they want to promote ISIS. I think they made it because they want to promote content for CNN, MSNBC, Pfizer, Fox News and whoever else gives them money to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com