The Supreme Court’s opinions in the NetChoice/CCIA cases have been leading to some bizarre interpretations, as many people try to read into it things they wanted to see but just aren’t there. Cathy already covered some of the oddities of Justice Alito’s concurrence (which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch signed onto), but I wanted to dig in a little more to his concurrence, pointing out a few things that show just how much Alito is willing to decide on an ideological basis, rather than one based on principles.
The distinction between a real person selecting works and an algorithm is significant in that the algorithm doesn’t necessarily do so as a means of curating messages. An algorithm may just favor watch time, while a person choosing what to publish in a newspaper is making a cognitive choice regarding the message they want to send to their readers.
Someone decides what the algorithm is meant to do. It’s not like it’s wholly independent of human interaction. Just because you hide yourself behind layers of technology doesn’t mean you’re no longer liable for your decisions.
Depending on the algorithm I’d agree or disagree with you on that. A more complex designed one that was made to avoid certain words, prioritizes topics, and favor certain creators IMO is more indicative moderation and curation.
While a simple one that just highlights the best watchtime posts with weighting for most replies in the past hour wouldn’t carry the same indicia of a choice being made, as in regards to any one upload.
That first example should probably qualify them as a publisher in Sec 230 IMO but the second example shouldn’t be held to the same standard.
I mean… obviously context matters. But its just automation. A person can do the same thing, just taking more time.
Automation shouldn’t shield one from the consequences of their choices.