ST Alpha - "#RepealSection230 -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 161

In response to "8 YouTubers are subject to a billion dollar class-action lawsuit due to their influencing around FTX. -- (link)" by Mop

#RepealSection230 -- nm

Posted by hollywood big shot (aka pickmix) Mar 20 '23, 09:58

(No message)

Responses:

So it becomes YouTube’s fault? -- nm - Mop Mar 20, 10:02 9
- if they knowingly host it on their platform? sure -- nm - hollywood big shot Mar 20, 10:06 8
  - “Knowingly”? Millions of hours get uploaded every day. They don’t know. That’s the point of Section 230. Someone *tells* them, they’ll act. - Mop Mar 20, 10:13 7
    - if you can (over)do it for copyright, you can do it for hate speech and scammers -- nm - hollywood big shot Mar 20, 10:18 6
      - I can see them using algorithms for copyright because content matching. How do you content match against “bitcoin” or “nazi”? - Mop Mar 20, 10:19 5
        
        You incentivize Alphabet to come up with a way. (I don't have a position on s.320, but this is how) -- nm - Roger More Mar 20, 10:26 4
        
        Plus, the algorithms used by Alphabet, Meta, etc have a clear outcome of guiding people down the rabbit-hole. - Roger More Mar 20, 10:30 3
        
        This is why I think we just need to have regulation specifically about algorithmic recommendations. You can keep S230 in place with targeted - oblique Mar 20, 10:34 2
        
        *creates an algorithm to game the regulation of its algorithms* -- nm - Social media companies, probably Mar 20, 10:41
        
        I’d like more transparency on the algorithm, yes. Although they’d argue that this is their secret sauce that makes them more successful. - Mop Mar 20, 10:36

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.