This lawsuit is ridiculous, it seems to be based on an assumption that either (a) use of social media is a fundamental right or (b) social media is a utility.
From a user's perspective I do get the issue of the feed being trash, but you do already have a choice of what you see. Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like.
Given they do allow unfollowing it doesn’t seem ridiculous to also allow users to automate that activity. I don’t know if it’s really a legal right but just as a principle it doesn’t seem absurd on its face.
Totally agree that it seems like a reasonable feature. My only point is that it isn't a requirement, and if Facebook decides to only offer an algorithmic feed and users don't want that they can just not use Facebook. The idea of legally requiring manual feed curation effectively implies that access to Facebook is a right to be protected rather than a product offered by a for-profit business.
FB currently benefits from a law sheilding them from liability for what they host and show on their service. This shield comes with the classification of being a facilitator of communication and sharing of content for your users, which carries certain obligations. Among those is that users be able to filter what they can see, selectively, while using the service. Basically, (b) is true, though in a limited capacity.
The Communications Decency Act could pretty easily be removed or revised to exclude protections once companies modify or decide how user provided content is shared.
In my opinion, the 25 year old law was never reasonably meant to protect algorithmic content curation but was meant for things like blogs and forums. It seems much more reasonable to clarify that rather than assume social media is a public utility.
> Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like.
Sounds like you're saying that Facebook, Twitter, et al are providers of content, and users can just choose among these content providers the way they can newspapers or television networks.
Totally makes sense.
The thing is, they don't want to be treated thar way. At least not most of the time. They want to be treated as a utility service that facilitates distribution of user content, because that kind of service is largely protected from accountability for the content being distributed. If they're providing a well-made pipe or a community bulletin board, them they're off the hook when somebody shoves something illegal through the pipe or posts something libelous on the board.
Newspapers and telivision networks are liable for the content they buy/produce and distribute. They can be sued for libel or prosecuted for publicizing classified material inappropriately. Traditional internet communities have a special protection from that kind of accountability under the premise that they're simply raw conduits and not deliberate curators or publishers.
Facebook, Twitter, et al began to push the boundaries of that protection as the modern social media "Algorirthms" developed and became more and more crafted to favor specific content of the site's choosing. It makes them look a lot more like a publisher than a conduit.
Whether they still represent the kind of site that's supposed to be protected or if they now represent the kind of publisher that's supposed to be accountable is ultimately an unsettled political question.
You can have your opinion, and it sounds like you do, but it's not a simple and obvious thing at this point.
What Facebook wants isn't really relevant. Most businesses want a monopoly of some sort, that doesn't mean they'll get it.
I'm sure the owners of MySpace would love for it to become the dominant social media network again. That's about as likely as all the world governments suddenly disarming.
These days, Facebook is really only used by angry Boomers for spreading around crazy conspiracy theories, and Xitter is only used by far-right-wing nuts for spreading racist conspiracy theories. Everyone else has moved on already.
I say its simple only because, at least today, it is a settled question and social media sites are not legally considered publishers. It would really only be an unsettled, difficult question if the law wasn't clear and we didn't have an answer on whether they are or aren't liable. That's not where we are though, we have a clear law on the books we just have a question of whether people still agree with it.
I actually think they should be and have thought that for years. Curating content should be enough to remove those liability protections in my opinion, they just didn't consider that 25 years ago when writing those online liability laws.
I tried the FB ad-free subscription (in EU) only to discover that what I actually wanted was a suggested stuff-free one. I hope this lawsuit can make a point.
The professor being named Zuckerberg breifly threw me for a loop.
I hope the Knight Institute wins this, though it is odd to me that the right to interact with a web service using extensions or other software is even being contested. What is the alternative? Nothing is allowed to interoperate without express permission? It runs so counter to the core of personal computing.
I suppose it ultimately comes down to "do you have a right to close your eyes or look away?"
A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
That sounds like it's in support of adblocking and similar practices.
21 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 61.5 ms ] threadFrom a user's perspective I do get the issue of the feed being trash, but you do already have a choice of what you see. Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like.
In my opinion, the 25 year old law was never reasonably meant to protect algorithmic content curation but was meant for things like blogs and forums. It seems much more reasonable to clarify that rather than assume social media is a public utility.
Sounds like you're saying that Facebook, Twitter, et al are providers of content, and users can just choose among these content providers the way they can newspapers or television networks.
Totally makes sense.
The thing is, they don't want to be treated thar way. At least not most of the time. They want to be treated as a utility service that facilitates distribution of user content, because that kind of service is largely protected from accountability for the content being distributed. If they're providing a well-made pipe or a community bulletin board, them they're off the hook when somebody shoves something illegal through the pipe or posts something libelous on the board.
Newspapers and telivision networks are liable for the content they buy/produce and distribute. They can be sued for libel or prosecuted for publicizing classified material inappropriately. Traditional internet communities have a special protection from that kind of accountability under the premise that they're simply raw conduits and not deliberate curators or publishers.
Facebook, Twitter, et al began to push the boundaries of that protection as the modern social media "Algorirthms" developed and became more and more crafted to favor specific content of the site's choosing. It makes them look a lot more like a publisher than a conduit.
Whether they still represent the kind of site that's supposed to be protected or if they now represent the kind of publisher that's supposed to be accountable is ultimately an unsettled political question.
You can have your opinion, and it sounds like you do, but it's not a simple and obvious thing at this point.
I'm sure the owners of MySpace would love for it to become the dominant social media network again. That's about as likely as all the world governments suddenly disarming.
These days, Facebook is really only used by angry Boomers for spreading around crazy conspiracy theories, and Xitter is only used by far-right-wing nuts for spreading racist conspiracy theories. Everyone else has moved on already.
I actually think they should be and have thought that for years. Curating content should be enough to remove those liability protections in my opinion, they just didn't consider that 25 years ago when writing those online liability laws.
Yep, that was my solution to the problem. Works great!
Now I just need to stop wasting time on Reddit.
I hope the Knight Institute wins this, though it is odd to me that the right to interact with a web service using extensions or other software is even being contested. What is the alternative? Nothing is allowed to interoperate without express permission? It runs so counter to the core of personal computing.
E: Oops, his name is "Zuckerman".
A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
That sounds like it's in support of adblocking and similar practices.
Second of all, I would be astounded if this suit succeeds, it seems more like a publicity stunt.