Algorithmic Recommendations Unprotected
This is a Big Tech news story, published by Techdirt, that relates primarily to Anderson news.
Big Tech news
For more Big Tech news, you can click here:
more Big Tech newsAnderson news
For more Anderson news, you can click here:
more Anderson newsNews about Us circuit and appeals courts
For more Us circuit and appeals courts news, you can click here:
more Us circuit and appeals courts newsTechdirt news
For more news from Techdirt, you can click here:
more news from TechdirtAbout the Otherweb
Otherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about Us circuit and appeals courts, you might also like this article about
First Amendment protection. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest First Amendment news, First Amendment principles news, news about Us circuit and appeals courts, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
First Amendment analysisTechdirt
•Last week, the Third Circuit ruled that algorithms aren’t protected by Section 230. Here’s why
66% Informative
The Third Circuit’s Section 230 Decision In Anderson v. TikTok Is Pure Poppycock.
The plaintiffs in Anderson are not the first to contend that websites lose Section 230 protection when they use fancy algorithms to make publishing decisions.
Several notable court rulings (all of them unceremoniously brushed aside by the Third Circuit ) reject the notion that algorithms are special.
The Supreme Court recently tried its luck, and it failed miserably, writes Aaron Carroll .
Carroll: The question is not how the website serves up the content; it's what makes the content problematic.
He says creating an “algorithm’ rule would be rash and wrong; it would involve butchering Section 230 itself.
Carroll says the Third Circuit used Moody v. NetChoice as a neat trick to ignore the universe of Section 230 precedent.
Many on the right think narrowing Section 230 would strike a blow against the bogeyman of online censorship.
Congress could not revoke First Amendment rights wherever Section 230 protection exists, Barthold says.
There are forces—a desire to stick it to Big Tech ; the urge to find a remedy in a tragic case—pressing judges to misapply the law.
VR Score
69
Informative language
72
Neutral language
16
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
50
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
detected
Known propaganda techniques
detected
Time-value
medium-lived
External references
14
Source diversity
12
Affiliate links
no affiliate links