[Nasrudith]

Congratulations, you fell victim to the 'platform vs publisher' liability misinformation. It doesn't work like that and has never worked like that, nor should it except for the perfidious pushers of that misinformation.

A prioritization or recommendation algorithm does not count as publication. The work was already published by somebody else. Do you blame a library card catalog for listing by subject, title, or chronology?

[ndriscoll]

If a librarian put a book out on the front table with a "recommended reading" sign then yeah that seems fair for them to carry some liability if that book were actually libelous. And so it should be for recommended posts on sites like Youtube, Instagram, etc. A chronological or alphabetical index is a factual catalogue of information. A recommendation is you vouching for the material. Totally different.

[kelnos]

> Do you blame a library card catalog for listing by subject, title, or chronology?

I would if someone reordered them based on some subjective "engagement" metric.

The card catalog is not a recommendation engine. YouTube's recommendations are... literally a recommendation engine. I think platforms should be legally liable for the things they promote via subjective choices. Pity the law isn't set up that way.

[Braxton1980]

>. I think platforms should be legally liable for the things they promote via subjective choices

Why

[masfuerte]

It worked like that before they changed the law and it can work like that again.

> The work was already published by somebody else.

This is just wrong. It is literally the platform that does the publishing. However, section 230 says that we won't treat the platform as the publisher.

This is not some logical necessity. It's just a law that we can change.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Exactly. Why do people keep saying we don't understand it or it's misinformation?