Submitted by dustofoblivion123 t3_1194caa in Futurology
seaburno t1_j9ks54q wrote
Reply to comment by override367 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
Its not like a book store at all. First, Google/YouTube aren't being sued because of the content of the videos (which is protected under 230), they're being sued because they are promoting radicalism (in this case from ISIS) to susceptible users in order to sell advertising. They know that they are susceptible because of their search history and other discrete data that they have. Instead of the bookstore analogy, its more like a bar that keeps serving the drunk at the counter more and more alcohol, even without being asked, and handing the drunk his car keys to drive home.
The purpose of 230 is to allow ISPs to remove harmful/inappropriate content without facing liability, and allow them to make good faith mistakes in not removing harmful/inappropriate content and not face liability. What the Content Providers are saying is that they can show anything without facing liability, and that it is appropriate for them to push harmful/inappropriate content to people who they know are susceptible to increase user engagement to increase advertising revenue.
The Google/YouTube algorithm actively pushes content to the user that it thinks the user should see to keep the user engaged in order to sell advertising. Here, the Google/YouTube algorithm kept pushing more and more ISIS videos to the guy who committed the terrorism.
What the Google/YouTube algorithm should be doing is saying "videos in categories X, Y and Z will not be promoted." Not remove them. Not censor them. Just not promote them via the algorithm.
somdude04 t1_j9l13bt wrote
If a Barnes and Noble buys and front-faces more of a book at store #723 because it's been selling a bunch there, they're not obligated to read it and verify it's not libelous or whatever. It's their choice, but having a book isn't an explicit endorsement of it. So why would YouTube, which is effectively like a chain of stores selling videos (with one store per person), be liable if they advertise videos to someone (as they're effectively the sole customer at an individual store).
seaburno t1_j9l34e6 wrote
The difference is because B&N is making the money on the sale of the book, not on the advertising at other locations in the store (or in the middle of the book).
YT isn't selling videos. They do not make money on the sale of a "product" to the end user. Instead, they are selling advertising. To increase their revenue via advertising, they are pushing content to increase the time on site.
The YouTube/Google algorithm is like saying: "Oh, you're interested in a cup of coffee? Here, try some meth instead."
RyanBlade t1_j9lyl2e wrote
Just curious, as I completely get where you are coming from, but would you consider the same standard for a search engine? The algorithm requires your input to search for something. Should Yahoo! be liable for the websites on the search result if they are organized by and algorithm that tries to bring the most relevant results to your query?
seaburno t1_j9m0rzo wrote
I probably would not hold the same standard to search engines, but with more understanding about how the search algorithms work, I could change my mind. Even if YT removed the ISIS videos at issue in the case that was heard yesterday from its algorithm, if someone just searched: "ISIS videos" and the videos came up, then I think it falls within the 230 exception, because they are merely hosting, not promoting, the videos.
Again, using the bookstore analogy, search is much more like saying to the employee: "I'm looking for information as to X" and being told its on "aisle 3, row 7 and shelf 2." In that instance, its a just a location. What you do with that location is up to you. Just because you ask Yahoo! where your nearest car dealership is and the nearest bar is doesn't mean that Yahoo! is liable because you were driving under the influence.
When you add in "promoted" search results, it gets stickier, because they're selling the advertising. So, if you asked where the nearest car dealership is, and they gave you that information and then also sent you a coupon for 12 free drinks that are good only on the day you purchased a new (to you) vehicle, that's a different story, and they may be liable.
RyanBlade t1_j9mpncd wrote
Gotcha, so then if you keep going back to the same book store and asking about books that are all in aisle 3 row 7. Not always shelf 2, or what ever just sticking with the analog. Is it not okay if the cashier sees you come in and mentions that they just got a new book in that section?
Clearly they are promoting it if this is your first time, probably promoting it if it is your second time, but eventually it becomes just good service. They got a book in that section, they know you keep asking for stuff that is in that area. They want to sell books, is it not okay for them to let you know about the new item?
I am not trying to slippery slope as I agree, the line between a publisher and distributor is very fuzzy with stuff like search engines,YouTube, Tik Tok, etc. I am just curious where you think the line is as I agree there probably should be one, but don’t know where.
bremidon t1_j9nsyx7 wrote
>The purpose of 230 is to allow ISPs to remove harmful/inappropriate content without facing liability
Ding ding ding. Correct.
This was and is the intent, and is clear to anyone who was alive back when the problem came up originally.
However a bunch of court cases kept moving the goalposts on what ISPs and other hosts were allowed to do as part of "removing harmful/inappropriate content". Now it does not resemble anything close to what Congress intended when 230 was created.
If you are doing a good-faith best effort to remove CP, and you accidentally take down a site that has Barney the Dinosaur on it, you should be fine. If you somehow get most of the bad guys, but miss one or two, you should also be fine. That is 230 in a nutshell.
The idea that they can use it to increase engagement is absolutely ludicrous. As /u/Brief_Profession_148 said, they have it both ways now. They can be as outspoken through their algorithms as they like, but get to be protected as if it is a neutral platform.
It's time to take 230 back to the roots, and make it clear that if you use algorithms for business purposes (marketing, sales, engagement, whatever), you are not protected by 230. You are only protected if you are making good faith efforts to remove illegal and inappropriate content. And "inappropriate" needs to be clearly enumerated so that the old trick of taking something away with the reason "for reasons we won't tell you in detail" does not work anymore.
Why any of this is controversial is beyond me.
g0ing_postal t1_j9m4sbe wrote
Then the big problem is how do you categorize the video? Content creators will not voluntarily categorize their content in such a way that will reduce visibility. Text filtering can only go so far and content creators will find ways around it
The only certain way to do so is via manual content moderation. 500 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube per minute. That's a massive task. Anything else will allow some videos to get though
Maybe eventually we can train ai to do this but currently we need people to do it. Let's say it takes 3 minutes to moderate 1 minute of video to allow moderators time to analyze, research, and take breaks
500 hrs/min x 60 min/ hour x 24 hours/day= 720000 hours of video uploaded
Multiply by 3 to get 2.16 million man hours of moderation per day. For a standard 8 hour shift, that requires 270,000 full time moderators to moderate just YouTube content
That's an unfeasible amount. That's not factoring in how brutal content moderation is
Even with moderation, you'll still have some videos slipping through
I agree that something needs to be done, but it must be understood the sheer scale that we're dealing with here means that a lot of "common sense" solutions don't work
seaburno t1_j9mc2jz wrote
Should we, as the public, be paying for YouTube's private costs? Its my understanding that AI already does a lot of the categorization. It also isn't about being perfect, but good enough. Its my understanding that even with all that they do to keep YouTube free from porn, some still slips through, but it is taken down as soon as it is reported.
But the case isn't about categorizing it, but is about how it is promoted and monetized by YouTube/Google and their algorithms, and, then the ultimate issue of the case - is the algorithm promoting the complained of content protected under 230 which was written to give safe harbor to companies who act in good faith to take down material that violates that company's terms of service?
takachi8 t1_j9mp1r9 wrote
As someone who primary source of entertainment is YouTube, and has been on YouTube along time. I can say their video filter is not perfect in any sense. I have seen videos that should have been pulled down do to it violating their terms and conditions that stayed for along time. I have also seen "perfectly good" (lack of better word) video get pulled down or straight up demonetize for variety of reasons that made zero sense but was marked by their AI. Improper marking causing content creators to lose money which in turns hurts YouTube and their creators.
I have been on YouTube long time, and everything that was ever recommended to me has been closely related to what I have or am actively watching. I would say their algorithm for recommending video for person who actual has an account with them is pretty spot on. The only time I seen off the wall stuff is when I watch YouTube from a device that I'm not login into or incognito mode, and the same thing for advertisements. My question is what are people looking up that causing YouTube to recommend this kind of stuff cause I never seen it on YouTube or google advertise. Usually I find on reddit.
g0ing_postal t1_j9md1wp wrote
I'm not saying that the public should pay for it. I'm just saying that it would be a massive undertaking to categorize the videos. Porn seems to me that it would be easier to detect automatically. There are specific images they can be used to detect such content
General content is more difficult because it's hard for ai to distinguish, say, legitimate discussion over trans inclusion vs transphobic hate speech disguised using bad faith arguments
And in order to demonetize and not promote those videos, we need to first figure out which videos those are
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments