Comment by seydor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seydor | Hacker News Reader

The ruling itself says that this is not about 230, it's about TikTok's curation and collation of the specific videos. TikTok is not held liable for the user content but for the part that they do their 'for you' section. I guess it makes sense, manipulating people is not OK whether it's for political purposes as facebook and twitter do, or whatever. So 230 is not over

It would be nice to see those 'For you' and youtube's recomendations gone. Chronological timelines are the best , and will bring back some sanity. Don't like it? don't follow it

> Accordingly, TikTok’s algorithm, which recommended the Blackout Challenge to Nylah on her FYP, was TikTok’s own “expressive activity,” id., and thus its first-party speech.

>

> Section 230 immunizes only information “provided by another[,]” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and here, because the information that forms the basis of Anderson’s lawsuit—i.e., TikTok’s recommendations via its FYP algorithm—is TikTok’s own expressive activity, § 230 does not bar Anderson’s claims.

> Don't like it? don't follow it

How did you find it in the first place? A search? Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people), all you'll see is pages and pages of SEO.

Opening up liability like this is a quagmire that's not going to do good things for the internet.

>not going to do good things for the internet.

Not sure if you've noticed, but the internet seemingly ran out of good things quite some time back.

Irrelevant and untrue.

For example, just today there was a highly entertaining and interesting article about how to replace a tablet-based thermostat. And it was posted on the internet, and surfaced via an algorithm on Hacker News.

The question though is how do you do a useful search without having some kind of algorithmic answer to what you think the user will like. Explicit user or exact match strings are simple but if I search "cats" looking for cat videos how does that list get presented without being a curated list made by the company?

retweets/sharing. that's how it used to be

How did they find it? How did you see the tweet? How did the shared link show up in any of your pages?

Also, lists of content (or blind links to random pages - web rings) have been a thing since well before Twitter or Dig.

How do rumors and news propagates? And we still consider that the person sharing it with us is partially responsible (especially if it's fake).

Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people)

Do you genuinely believe a judge is going to rule that a Boyer-Moore implementation is fundamentally biased? It seems likely that sticking with standard string matching will remain safe.

You're getting off topic here though ?

«Had Nylah viewed a Blackout Challenge video through TikTok’s search function, rather than through her FYP, then TikTok may be viewed more like a repository of third-party content than an affirmative promoter of such content.»

how does that work for something like tiktok. Chronological doesn't have much value if you're trying to discover interesting content relevant to your interest.

> manipulating people is not OK whether it's for political purposes as facebook and twitter do

Not to mention CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, NPR, etc.

Those are subject to legal liability for the content they produce.

But not for manipulation. That isn’t a crime.

> Chronological timelines are the best , and will bring back some sanity. Don't like it? don't follow it

You realize that there is immense arrogance in this statement where you have decided that something is good for me ? I am totally fine with youtube's recommendations or even Tiktok's algorithms that according to you "manipulate" me.

You can have them, but they have legal consequences for the owner.

How can they have them if they are prohibited?

They're not prohibited. They're just liable for it, just like manufacturers are liable for defective products that endangers people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com