I don't see how this is about personalization. HN has an algorithm that shows what it wants in the way it wants.
But the basis of this ruling is basically "well the Moody case says that curation/moderation/suggestion/whatever is First Amendment protected speech, therefore that's your speech and not somebody else's and so 230 doesn't apply and you can be liable for it." That rationale extends to basically any form of moderation or selection, personalized or not, and would blow a big hole in 230's protections.
Given generalized anti-Big-Tech sentiment on both ends of the political spectrum, I could see something that claimed to carve out just algorithmic personalization/suggestion from protection meeting with success, either out of the courts or Congress, but it really doesn't match the current law.
I see a lot of people saying this is a bad decision because it will have consequences they don't like, but the logic of the decision seems pretty damn airtight as you describe it. If the recommendation systems and moderation policies are the company's speech, then the company can be liable when the company "says", by way of their algorithmic "speech", to children that they should engage in some reckless activity likely to cause their death.
Personalisation simply matches users with the content the algorithm thinks they want to see. Moderation (which is typically also an algorithm) tries to remove harmful content from the platform altogether.
The ruling isn't saying that Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok moderated. It's saying Section 230 doesn't apply because TikTok personalised, allegedly knew about the harmful content and allegedly didn't take enough action to moderate this harmful content.
These algorithms aren't matching you with what you want to see, they're trying to maximize your engagement- or, its what the operator wants you to see, so you'll use the site more and generate more data or revenue. Its a fine, but extremely important distinction.
I even think it would count if the only moderation you did on your Lionel model train site was to make sure that most of the conversation was about Lionel model trains, and that they be treated in a positive (or at least neutral) manner. That degree of moderation, for that purpose, would make you liable if you left illegal or tortious content up i.e. if you moderate, you're a moderator, and your first duty is legal.
If you're just a dumb pipe, however, you're a dumb pipe and get section 230.
I wonder how this works with recommendation algorithms, though, seeing as they're also trade secrets. Even when they're not dark and predatory (advertising related.) If one has a recommendation algo that makes better e.g. song recommendations, you don't want to have to share it. Would it be something you'd have to privately reveal to a government agency (like having to reveal the composition of your fracking fluid to the EPA, as an example), and they would judge whether or not it was "editorial" or not?
[edit: that being said, it would probably be very hard to break the law with a song recommendation algorithm. But I'm sure you could run afoul of some financial law still on the books about payola, etc.]
I'm not sure that's quite it. As I read the article and think about its application to Tiktok, the problem was more that "the algorithm" was engaged in active and allegedly expressive promotion of the unsafe material. If a site like HN just doesn't remove bad content, then the residual promotion is not exactly Hacker News's expression, but rather its users'.
The situation might change if a liability-causing article were itself given 'second chance' promotion or another editorial thumb on the scale, but I certainly hope that such editorial management is done with enough care to practically avoid that case.
And they probably didn't think through how this particular argument could affect other areas of their business.
Importantly, this does not mean that before the Third Circuit decision platforms could just curate any which way they want and government couldn't regulate at all -- the mandatory removal regime around CSAM content is a great example of government regulating speech and forcing platforms to comply.
The Third Circuit decision, in a nutshell, is telling the platforms that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to claim that their algorithmic feeds are speech that is protected from most government regulation, they can't simultaneously claim that these same algorithmic feeds are mere passive vessels for the speech of third parties. If that were the case, then their algorithms would enjoy no 1A protection from government regulation. (The content itself would still have 1A protection based on the rights of the creators, but the curation/ranking/privileging aspect would not).
This ruling is a natural consequence of the NetChoice ruling. Social media companies can't have it both ways.
> If that were the case, then their algorithms would enjoy no 1A protection from government regulation.
Well, the companies can still probably claim some 1st Amendment protections for their recommendation algorithms (for example, a law banning algorithmic political bias would be unconstitutional). All this ruling does is strip away the safe harbour protections, which weren't derived from the 1A in the first place.
Would it? The TV channels of old were heavily regulated well past 1st amendment limits.
Cable was never regulated like that. The medium actually mattered in this case
> TikTok, Inc., via its algorithm, recommended and promoted videos posted by third parties to ten-year-old Nylah Anderson on her uniquely curated “For You Page.”
Winding up in the same place as the defendant would require making a unique, dynamic, individualized BB for each user tailored to them based on pervasive online surveillance and the platform's own editorial "secret sauce."
Although HN's algorithm depends (mostly) on user input for how it presents the posts, it still favours some over others and still runs afoul here. You would need a literal 'most recent' chronological view and HN doesn't have that for comments. It probably should anyway!
@dang We need the option to view comments chronologically, please
That said, the feature you requested is already implemented but you have to know it is there. Dang mentioned it in a recent comment that I bookmarked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230703
To see comments on this story sorted newest-first, change the link to
https://news.ycombinator.com/latest?id=41391868
instead of
I don't think the feature was that unknown. Per Wikipedia, the CDA passed in 1996 and Slashdot was created in 1997, and I doubt the latter's moderation/voting system was that unique.
You might like this then: https://hckrnews.com/
Where is the algorithmic recommandation that differs per user on HN?
In other words, the Supreme Court decision mentions editorial decisions but no court case has yet backed up if that means editorial decisions in the HN front page sense (as in mods make some choices but it’s not personalized.) Common sense may say mods making decisions is editorial decisions but it’s a gray area until a court case makes it clear. Precedence is the most important thing when interpreting law, and the only precedence we have is that it pertains to personalized feeds.
If you child porn that gets shared via direct links then that is bad even if nobody can see it, but it is much much worse if you start recommending that to people as well.
It's rarely if ever going to be the case that there is some distinct unit of code called "the algorithm" that can be separated and considered legally distinct from the rest of the codebase.
I don't think timestamps are, in any way, construed editorial judgement. They are a content agnostic related attribute.
The FYP algorithm that's contested in the case surfaced the video to the minor without her searching for that topic, following any specific content creator, or positively interacting (liking/favoriting/upvoting) with previous instances of said content. It was fed to her based on a combination of what TikTok knew about her demographic information, what was trending on the platform, and TikTok's editorial secret sauce. TikTok's algorithm made an active decision to surface this content to her, despite knowing that other children had died from similar challenge videos, they promoted it and should be liable for that promotion.
"(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or"
Algorithmic ranking, curation, and promotion are not.