[gruez]

but does gab use "algorithms and ML" to determine what gets shown? Doesn't it use a upvote/downvote model like hn or reddit? Is a site that uses a "order by upvotes" ranking system closer to the first print shop or the second? What about bulletin boards that ranks by last post?

[munificent]

> Doesn't it use a upvote/downvote model like hn or reddit?

Is that really any different? If your print shop counts the user-submitted tallies on a chalkboard to decide which pamphlets to print, the print shop is still choosing to use that rule to decide what to print.

[gruez]

Because then you can't make any sort of public facing site with UGC without being burdened with the responsibility of what's being posted. Come to think of it, the distinction is entirely arbitrary. Run a bulletin board that sorts by last reply? You are responsible for the user content. Run a mailing list that forwards every message to the end user, and the end-user implements the same sort by default? You're off the hook, even though the end result is the same.

[munificent]

> Because then you can't make any sort of public facing site with UGC without being burdened with the responsibility of what's being posted.

Now you've got it.

> Run a bulletin board that sorts by last reply?

There is maybe an argument that your level of responsibility somewhat depends on the complexity of the algorithm you use to decide how much amplification to apply to any given piece of content.

I don't think responsibility is black and white.

> Run a mailing list that forwards every message to the end user, and the end-user implements the same sort by default? You're off the hook, even though the end result is the same.

The end result is the same but the agency is not. The end-user chose to apply that sorting, so they have accepted some of the responsibility for what they consume.

If I shoot someone with a gun, I'm totally responsible. If I give you the gun and you shoot them, you are responsible. Maybe I still bear some responsibility for giving you the gun. But you certainly have taken on more responsibility than you would have if I shot them.

Here's maybe another way to think about it. If you're choosing to run a bulletin board, presumably you're doing so to get something out of it for yourself. Is it fair for you to receive that benefit while taking no responsibility for anything that happens on it?

[gruez]

>Now you've got it.

Is that a net benefit for society? The last thing I want is for google (or other tech giants) to be even more trigger-happy about banning people because they view you as a high risk user. "decentralizing the web" isn't a good excuse, as most people don't have to know how to set up their own hosting, and only shifts the liability from the host to the search engine (because you have to find the content somehow).

>The end-user chose to apply that sorting, so they have accepted some of the responsibility for what they consume.

Don't we already have that? On reddit you can sort by "hot", "new", "rising", "controversial", and "top". On gab you can sort by "hot" and "top". I'm not sure how that would change things, other than forcing yet another modal that users have to click through.

>If you're choosing to run a bulletin board, presumably you're doing so to get something out of it for yourself. Is it fair for you to receive that benefit while taking no responsibility for anything that happens on it?

Not every website has to be a for-profit venture. Many (small) forums run essentially on donations, or are low maintenance side projects attached to a bigger project.