It’s a significant data point on the potential limits of Section 230.

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Of course, it is. Going to a search, typing a query and getting results sorted by some algorithm is one thing. Getting something recommended on a dedicated page without any user input, is another. It’s good to see at least one circuit is not owned by corporations…

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s all algorithms.

      I think the communication matters, though. A general home page doesn’t imply curation or endorsement. “For you” implies both.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That depends on what the general page is. If they are general trends that are shown to everyone then sure, but if it’s personalized, then it’s curation. Look at Lemmy. It has sorting and trending algorithms, but the personalization aspect is left to you as a user to decide by subscribing.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Actual curation is human. It’s not actually curated.

          It’s the implication that it’s curated that makes it “their speech” and not “user generated content”. They’re endorsing it with the way they present it, and that implied endorsement of dangerous behavior meaningfully increases the likelihood people do it, above and beyond the natural viral nature of ideas spreading.