Comment by verdverm
11 days ago
At the same time, the people can petition the state to regulate corporations use of our speech, and generally our data
They have been abusing their power, something has to change
11 days ago
At the same time, the people can petition the state to regulate corporations use of our speech, and generally our data
They have been abusing their power, something has to change
Totally agree here, once the state compels a private company to regulate speech it should become a free speech issue.
I haven't seen anyone show that here yet, though the Twitter files did show that for example.
The state is not regulating speech in my scenario, it is regulating algorithms and the relative promotion/limitation of another person's speech.
We have considered algorithms to be a form of speech, because it is an "editorial" process, but this does not seem to be what they actually do. Similar to how Ai output is not copyrightable, social media feed algorithms that work on big data should not be considered an "editorial" process. There is no human involved in making decisions, just like Ai. Thus, if we regulate algorithms, we are not regulating speech, we are regulating a process, albeit a digital one with less case law.
Regulating the algorithms would be extremely difficult and I don't expect regulators would be able to do it in a clear enough way that it keeps up with whatever tech companies try next.
Much simpler would be to clarify that algorithmically curated feeds of user content do not fall under the protections shielding the hosting company from liability. It seems reasonable to me that the intent of said protections was was to avoid scenarios where the website is in no way directly involved in the content creation itself, once the company decides what and how to show it that seems outside the original intent.
1 reply →