I like Wookies idea; if your algorithm picks content to increase engagement you are responsible for the validity of that content. If you just let view count pick what is on the front page you are off the hook. If you pick stuff you think I’ll like you have to make sure it isn’t propaganda.
By holding Google liable for amplifying ISIS?
I guess, but you can’t find that stuff on YouTube right now anyways.
And I’m not sure I agree they make any decisions on what to amplify. I think the algorithm is stuff you like, stuff related to it you might like, and finally way below that new stuff that other people like unrelated to your stuff, that’s it.
I thought Facebook admitted to presenting negative content over positive content because it improves engagement didn’t they?
I mean, some people found ISIS content there. That was the basis of these lawsuits.
I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson!
I mean I’m joking but they’re going to try damn hard to keep beheading videos off their platform thats for sure.
IDK - was specifically talking about youtube and this subject is infuriating so I try to avoid thinking about it too much. I haven’t had a FB account for 10 years.
But more or less that’s what I’m saying above - you don’t have to artificially inflate negative content, human nature will do it for you.
1 Like
It depends on the specifics of the law re: this site. like, if we were held liable because some troll from UP comes over here and starts posting a bunch of illegal donkey incest porn, and a mod doesnt get to it for several hours, do we run afoul of the law? if yes, it isn’t feasible, not without strict content filtering that would be more expensive than what a site like this could probably afford. or be forced to do stuff like not allow image uploads.
and even if they delete it, and that’s fine, the admin would be liable to make EXTRA sure it’s not lingering in some database or cache.
Well, nothing else to do but ask the Supreme Court if Congress can investigate them.
1 Like
According to 5-4, Congress could theoretically not pay for the Supreme Court’s office space. I wonder if we could get Harlan Crow to personally fund the operating expenses of the court.
1 Like
Well only for the 5 majority justices. Fuck Roberts.
Holy Christ this Clean Water Act ruling is dumber than you can possibly imagine.
Literally the EPA can’t regulate water if it goes underground this is insane. About half of our wetlands are no longer protected.
Seems like a pretty good time for the fuck you no angle. The only possible way this can go is for the Democrats to simply deny the authority of the SC. They own it for the next 50 years as things stand now so it’s that or fail as an empire. I get caring about norms and institutions but the GOP absolutely obliterated this one already.
You want it to be one way. (So do I.)
Anytime the EPA goes to court now I expect them to lose based on vague “major questions doctrine” handwaving, Alito going full “wetlands aren’t water” is a new and exciting twist, A+ job writers.
lol the article is good too but the title really says everything
1 Like
At least one good thing happened today: the court ruled 9-0 that it was unconstitutional for Hennepin County to keep all the profit (well over the taxes they were owed) from the sale of a 94 year old woman’s house they seized for unpaid property taxes, and everyone is dunking on Neal Katyal, who argued for the villains in this case while bragging about it being his 50th appearance before SCOTUS.
Just infuriating, even by Trump-era standards. Half of US wetlands just lost federal protections that have been in place since the 50’s. Alito isn’t even pretending to argue in good faith, he’s like “If it protects wetlands, does it also protect swimming pools??!? Durrrrr I dunno, who can say what the intent was?” Completely embarrassing third-world nation shit.