4257

No, other media are free from liability when publishing Constitutionally-protected content.

4258

But not slander or libel, right? It’s already the case that there is some speech which is constrained with the threat of litigation.

4259

But the point of this legislation is to use the threat of liability for libel or copyright infringement, which social media platforms can not avoid, to punish what would otherwise be First Amendment-protected conduct. It’s the same sort of end-around as the Texas abortion law.

4260

This is not what the legislation says its point is, or what it does.

The legislation, titled the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act , would amend Section 230 to remove absolute immunity in certain instances. Specifically, the bill would lift the Section 230 liability shield when an online platform knowingly or recklessly uses an algorithm or other technology to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury.

4261

That description of the legislation is exactly what I said.

Look, they aren’t proscribiing * online platform knowingly or recklessly uses an algorithm or other technology to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury directly, because that would be unconstitutional (although if they had guts, that’s what they’d do). Nor are they directly creating liability for this conduct, because that too would be unconstitutional. Instead, they are lifting the 230 liability waiver-- which applies to things that already create liability, such as libel and copyright infringement. If they weren’t worried about First Amendment issues, they wouldn’t invoke Section 230 at all; they would just make those algorithms illegal. Instead, they are creating liability where there had been none for an otherwise Constitutionally protected action, hoping that the threat of lawsuits from the public will control the social media platforms’ behavior. This is exactly the same thing as the Texas abortion law; hoping that making the enforcement liability rather than direct government sanction will somehow evade judicial review (which should be bullshit; the fact that it has worked as much as it has in Texas shows the extent to which Trump and his predecessors have damaged the judiciary.)

If this is allowed to stand, it opens the door for all sort of nastiness from the Republicans, who will be eager to promote the Russian point of view in the name of “platform neutrality.”

4262

Facebook isn’t good at this stuff.

4263

Or they are very good at achieving what their internal goals are, and meeting those metrics, and they don’t give a fuck about the ethics or impacts those decisions have.

‘Sure we’re responsible for literal murders, but just look at our engagement metrics!’

4264

So…

Part of the article talks about a dummy account they set up to watch how FB etc algorithms work, and, shocking and surprising noone in this thread, FB sent the dummy account increasingly extreme views and links and videos etc.

4265

I thought this was a good write up of why the Facebook whistleblower matters: Changing The Facebook Conversation - by Charlie Warzel - Galaxy Brain

what Haugen is doing here is articulating a very powerful point that many Facebook users still take for granted: What you see on Facebook is not organic presentation of information. It is the result of decisions made for you by the company’s software, which follows its leaders’ directives.

This is a powerful sentiment because it gives every Facebook user a tangible example of how the platform deprives them of a certain kind of agency. In 2018, when the Cambridge Analytica scandal was in its second week, I wrote that it would have staying power because it reminded regular users how platforms have “stripped us of the agency to dictate what happens with our most personal information.” I think Haugen’s testimony (and the documents that help back it up) will do something similar for people who may have not realized that Facebook is not a pure reflection of what’s happening in the lives of their friends and families — it is a highly curated one. Talking about Facebook from the perspective of user agency has the potential to be effective. The company isn’t all powerful and platforms aren’t mind controllers, but they do exert influence on how information is amplified. And that’s a responsibility to be held accountable for.

4266

I think the majority don’t seem to care enough to stop using it. We’ve had really heinous shit confirmed by Facebook’s own documentation and tons of witness testimony, but people still use Facebook anyway while tut-tutting over it.

4267
4268

Exactly. There’s no amount of information that will ever come out that makes most people stop using FB.

Anyone waiting around for some kind of public epiphany on this has clearly not been paying attention.

4269

I mean people in this thread who’ve said they won’t stop using Facebook because reasons. That’s why these things can’t get solved in a weak democracy like the US where the ruling classes have little to no sense of paternalism.

4270

I think it’s funny that a high-minded aversion to nationalism (which coincidentally let’s them accrue the economic benefits of globalism) (and by them I mean we, of course) let’s the ruling class shirk their paternalism.

4271

Yeah man, Facebook is terrible but reasons!

Seriously, people want the government to step in and do what they themselves have the power to do and yet won’t.

JUST STOP USING FACEBOOK.

4272

This is why climate change is going to be impossible to combat in a normal way.

I want to fight climate change by doing nothing different in my life at all! Fix it please! Ok, fine, I’ll give up straws. (To be fair climate change has huge industrial components that individuals really can’t change… but people aren’t going to stop driving or even reduce driving voluntarily. The problem is that people mix convenience and necessity pretty quickly, and so Facebook has become necessary to them the way that driving to work now is. And once it’s reached that point, they expect bigger fish then themselves to fix it).

4273

On the other hand, the idea that everyone should give up Facebook because Facebook reinforces the bad ideas of some people isn’t intuitively obvious to me. Television reinforces the bad ideas of some people. Movies reinforce the bad ideas of some people. Books reinforce the bad ideas of some people. Newspapers and magazines reinforce the bad ideas of some people. Even the Rotary Club reinforces the bad ideas of some people.

I don’t really see the leap. When I was in the workforce, I put a 10.5 kWh solar plant on my roof and became a net producer of electricity. When I retired, I moved to a mild climate urban setting so that I live without cars and air conditioning / heating. It’s pretty obvious to me how lifestyle changes like those can impact climate change and lead to a better world. It’s not at all obvious to me how not using FB accomplishes that.

4274

You don’t really seem to fully fathom (or care) about the algorithmic nature of Facebook and social media, by this statement alone anyway. It’s just going to be fundamentally different than a channel guide or newsstand full of good and bad magazines.

4275

Yes, I’m stupid, that’s the problem.

People who like magazines with bad ideas don’t buy the ones with good ideas. People who like cable TV channels with bad ideas don’t watch the ones with good ideas. And so on. People choose the stuff that reinforces their bad ideas and prejudices, no matter what the medium.

4276

I can change the tv channel. I choose which magazine to buy and which articles to read.

Facebook pushes stories and links to me.