Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer Really? Because I've watched quite a few YouTube videos and I've never seen an ISIS recruitment video. Have you?

Seems to me that someone has to be searching or watching something pretty ISIS-adjacent for the algorithm to even offer that.

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer Their "actions" are simply giving people what they ask for.

Should we also make McDonalds liable for diabetes?

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer Wait, you think they're intentionally trying to radicalize people?

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer No, it's trying to hold them responsible for others' content because of their actions.

I'm all for them being held responsible for their own speech, but choosing the order third party speech is presented in shouldn't shift the liability.

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer So you wouldn't mind if I made a bunch of complaints to the German government about your server hosting Nazi content (not that I would do so, but just for the sake of argument)? Or signing up a bunch of accounts and actually posting such content and then reporting you to the government? How often would that have to happen before you gave up on hosting?

In America, the Nazis are the ones responsible for their content, not the people trying to run a website in good faith.

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer They already are responsible for the actions they willfully take when operating their service. That just doesn't make them responsible for the content of others just because of how they choose to order it.

@rene Oh, great, so any site I don't like, all I have to do is flood them with such requests until it becomes so much trouble it isn't worth running the site anymore. And the smaller the site is, the lower that bar will be. Thanks, Germany!

@rene So, wait, you're telling me that if I sign up for an account on mastodon dot social, post some Nazi propaganda, and alert German authorities, they'll go arrest Eugen?

Because I have some serious doubts about that.

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer I remember when people understood that shooting the messenger was a bad idea.

If you think YouTube is the necessary catalyst to radicalization, you have a lot of pre-YouTube history to explain.

The problem isn't tech: it's human nature. And you're not going to fix that by restricting speech on the internet. You're going to make it worse. You're going to make it less visible, festering, hidden.

Social media, like any communication medium, brings that darkness out into the light where it can be fought with counter-speech.

The answer is education, not muzzles.

@rene ...yeah, because those countries have very limited enforcement options for companies that are based in another country hosting data in another country.

They have two options: fine them, or block the entire country's access to them.

Those fines are probably just a cost of doing business for bigger companies.

But what about upstarts? Can they afford that?

And fines from the government is a whole different game from an endless deluge of lawsuits from private individuals. Nobody would ever be able to afford to compete with the big companies ever again.

@trunksapp @anders Are you referring to the Gonzalez argument regarding recommendation algorithms, or something else?

@rene Hate speech is entirely legal in the US, so that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Do these other countries not have defamation laws? Because, as I understand it, those laws tend to be *looser* than the US.

Moreover, if you acknowledge that we have this culture here, then why would you want to open the floodgates on it?

@ocdtrekkie @joeyh@octodon.social @evangreer If you think this site doesn't have any algorithms, you really don't understand how any of this works.

@rene Then why aren't they bankrupted by people suing them for the speech of trolls?

@anders @trunksapp "algorithm" isn't used at all. The relevant term in the law is "interactive computer service" which is actually even broader.

@DukeFirearmsLaw So what are the actual ramifications here? It just sets a precedent in that district, right? It doesn't actually strike it down across the country until it's been appealed up to SCOTUS? Am I understanding that correctly?