Comment by gmd63

Comment by gmd63 14 hours ago

Agreed. TikTok allows people to speak into the app, and to receive speech, but the act of organizing and strategically disseminating the speech is not speech -- it's societal scale hormone regulation and should be controlled for the health of the national body. It's wild that so many people are up in arms about TikTok when it is a Chinese app that is banned in China, where apps are heavily restricted.

For anyone who does consider these algorithms speech, I challenge you to share a single person at any social media company who has taken direct responsibility over a single content feed of an individual user. How can speech exist if nobody is willing to take ownership of it?

Cookingboy 13 hours ago

>the act of organizing and strategically disseminating the speech is not speech

It is, and the court acknowledged that editorial control is protected speech.

The ruling was made based on data privacy ground, not First Amendment Speech ground.

Reply View 2 replies

joshfee 12 hours ago

The case law around editorial control is at odds with most platforms' section 230 protection, which makes the fact that TikTok argued that its algorithm _is_ speech pretty different from how most platforms have argued to date (in order to preserve their section 230 protections)

Reply View | 0 replies
gmd63 12 hours ago

I've understood that social media companies deliberately do not identify as editors because they don't want to be responsible for generated feeds of users. Is this wrong? This is why I'm asking to see evidence of a specific person from a social media company taking direct responsibility over a user's consumed content.

Reply View | 0 replies