@joeyh @evangreer Indeed. We have no algorithm, such a ruling would be bad for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but very good for the fediverse.
Without algorithms driving engagement numbers, Trump would never have become President, and I think a lot of Internet folks don't want to acknowledge just how much death can be attributed to the immunity Section 230 provides.
@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.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer I do understand how any of this works. =)
There is no recommendation algorithm here. There are algorithms in the way "any math problem is technically an algorithm", but not in a way that would be legally claimable as "recommending content". Even in the case of "trending" mechanisms, the mechanism is publicly inspectable, and not profit-driven.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer That last bit is what, unfortunately, Section 230 defenders completely miss: Section 230 *is not used to do good faith moderation*. It's used to do *profit-motivated* moderation.
Tech companies moderate content in ways that make money, not protect people. And that's why 230 *has to go*. Because it turns out, radicalizing an entire half of the US is very, very profitable.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer Like, even if all of the organizations Google has funneled money to are right, and the Internet can't survive without Section 230: Then to be blunt, the Internet should die.
Too many people have been murdered because, you know, you like YouTube a lot, and YouTube might change if it's legally liable for *anything*.
@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.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer Removing Section 230 doesn't restrict speech online. Weird blanket immunity for tech companies is a solely United States thing, nobody else does it, and free speech is, strangely, not solely for American Internet servers.
Removing Section 230 will require companies be responsible for the actions they willfully take when operating their service. Every apocalyptic line of bull you've read beyond that is false.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer My Mastodon server falls under German law, there's zero Section 230 protection here! And yet, most people would argue mastodon.social is one of the looser-moderated servers on the generally-accepted fediverse! It isn't inundated with frivolous lawsuits about any which person having said any which thing.
You are buying a complete fabrication by extremely harmful companies trying to prevent being responsible for their actions.
@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.
@LouisIngenthron @joeyh @evangreer I mean, it's not my server. But I'd be really interested if you could prove that the Internet couldn't function in any country but the United States because of this one bad law. The idea that you think it is just seems hilarious.
And the problem is, Google and Facebook and Twitter AREN'T RUN IN GOOD FAITH! That's the whole point of why 230 has to go.