The argument could be made (and probably will be) that they promote those activities by allowing their algorithms to promote that content. Its's a dangerous precedent to set, but not unlikely given the recent rulings.
Any precedent here regardless of outcome will have significant (and dangerous) impact, as the status quo is already causing significant harm.
For example Meta/Facebook used to prioritize content that generates an angry face emoji (over that of a "like") - - as it results in more engagement and revenue.
However the problem still exists. If you combat problematic content with a reply of your own (because you want to push back against hatred, misinformation, or disinformation) then they have even more incentiive to show similar content. And they justify it by saying "if you engaged with content, then you've clearly indicated that you WANT to engage with content like that".
The financial incentives as they currently exist run counter to the public good
Yeah i have made that argument before. By pushing content via user recommended lists and auto play YouTube becomes a publisher and meeds to be held accountable
Not how it works. Also your use of "becomes a publisher" suggests to me that you are misinformed - as so many people are - that there is some sort of a publisher vs platform distinction in Section 230. There is not.
Oh no i am aware of that distinction. I just think it needs to go away and be replaced.
Currently sec 230 treats websites as not responsible for user generated content. Example, if I made a video defaming someone I get sued but YouTube is in the clear. But if The New York Times publishes an article defaming someone they get sued not just the writer.
Why? Because NYT published that article but YouTube just hosts it. This publisher platform distinction is not stated in section 230 but it is part of usa law.
This is frankly bizarre. I don't understand how you can even write that and reasonably think that the platform hosting the hypothetical defamation should have any liability there. Like this is actually a braindead take.
The argument could be made (and probably will be) that they promote those activities by allowing their algorithms to promote that content. Its's a dangerous precedent to set, but not unlikely given the recent rulings.
Any precedent here regardless of outcome will have significant (and dangerous) impact, as the status quo is already causing significant harm.
For example Meta/Facebook used to prioritize content that generates an angry face emoji (over that of a "like") - - as it results in more engagement and revenue.
However the problem still exists. If you combat problematic content with a reply of your own (because you want to push back against hatred, misinformation, or disinformation) then they have even more incentiive to show similar content. And they justify it by saying "if you engaged with content, then you've clearly indicated that you WANT to engage with content like that".
The financial incentives as they currently exist run counter to the public good
Yeah i have made that argument before. By pushing content via user recommended lists and auto play YouTube becomes a publisher and meeds to be held accountable
Not how it works. Also your use of "becomes a publisher" suggests to me that you are misinformed - as so many people are - that there is some sort of a publisher vs platform distinction in Section 230. There is not.
Oh no i am aware of that distinction. I just think it needs to go away and be replaced.
Currently sec 230 treats websites as not responsible for user generated content. Example, if I made a video defaming someone I get sued but YouTube is in the clear. But if The New York Times publishes an article defaming someone they get sued not just the writer.
Why? Because NYT published that article but YouTube just hosts it. This publisher platform distinction is not stated in section 230 but it is part of usa law.
This is frankly bizarre. I don't understand how you can even write that and reasonably think that the platform hosting the hypothetical defamation should have any liability there. Like this is actually a braindead take.