Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo I don't know how long it's been since you tried that last one, but I don't think it applies anymore. The prescriptions here are all tracked by computer, so if you need a prescription for it, you're already being tracked whether you pay in cash or not.

@greg And you don't see any problem with YouTube being liable for third-party defamation because they included a "next episode" button?

Spam filters may remove the most egregious, but for the most part, they don't; they simply categorize it into a folder. The only difference between the folders is which one opens by default when you open the app... because those are the ones you're recommended to actually pay attention to. Spam filters are absolutely recommendation algorithms.

How about search bars? Can platforms add any functionality to make them more useful by recommending datapoints that are more viewed and liked to the top of the search results? In particular, that's useful for preventing people from following fake accounts of high-profile folks on social media. But would that make them liable for the third-party content of those accounts they're "recommending" because a user searched for them?

If a small forum has a feed at the top recommending the most active threads, do they become responsible for the third-party content of those threads?

If an online game recommends friends to play with, do they become responsible for what those users say?

Is Yelp going to be liable for basically everything ever written on their website by third parties by the very nature of their business?

@greg I don't know about that. The proliferation of hashtags into everyday conversation is a pretty good indicator that the public does have some idea of how this works. Obviously, they don't know the intricate details, but I think most social media users understand that the "Recommended" or "Trending" sections feature content that's a mix of what the site owners want you to see and what other users are most talking about (and ads).

But let's digress. You started this thread by writing "content algorithms [should be] considered content themselves".

So, let's try a hypothetical. Let's say a white supremacist uploads some awful, and legally defamatory, content to YouTube in two parts. Defamation is difficult to prove, and may or may not violate YouTube's rules, but for the sake of the hypothetical, let's say it does break YouTube's rules, but it's still pending moderation (they haven't gotten to review it yet).

A viewer then watches the entire first part and, naturally, YouTube's algorithm recommends the subsequent episode, as anyone would reasonably expect them to.

Under your desired system, would this not make YouTube just as liable to be sued for the content as the creator of the content?

Another example: Wikipedia has a list of recommended articles on its homepage. If some user goes to those articles and edits one to contain libel, should Wikipedia the company then be liable for that because they "recommended" it?

A third example: Many email services now use spam filters that learn from user preferences, making them customized to the user. The fact that they sort incoming information automatically to recommend "good" mail to the inbox while hiding bad mail in the spam box... would that make the mail provider liable for the content of all messages delivered?

@greg See, I disagree with that. They can be "regulated" with simple public pressure. Look at how Facebook has massively beefed up its non-English-speaking moderators since the Myanmar thing.

This is all exceedingly new technology. It's not reasonable to punish someone for failing to predict every possible tangent the technology enables. Moreover, the law moves too slowly to keep up, and by setting things in stone, could stifle the very innovation that would produce further improvements limiting harm.

If social media causes harm (maliciously or ignorantly), they're already held responsible by the general public's outcry. They then have the option to respond to that criticism and improve, or lose customers and profits.

Which do you think they'll choose?

@greg No, I absolutely acknowledge your point as valid.

I just primarily disagree with where to place the blame.

Those same algorithms that can cause harm also help marginalized communities find and support each other. They're not inherently good *or* bad because all they do is just repeat and distribute the content of others.

The content itself is what matters.

And it drives me up a wall that so many people are more angry at social media for *carrying* the messages than they are at the authors for *writing* those messages.

To use your own words: "I feel like you're engaging in motivated reasoning to [attack] these companies."