I think by now roughly half of us grew up in a world where global reach has been simply taken for granted. I don't think it's particularly onerous to say that there should be some oversight on what a business can and can't do in the context where that business is relying on public infrastructure and can affect the whole-ass world, personally

▲

terminalshort 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There is oversight. Just not oversight of their UI design and algorithm, which is what people are calling for here. Regulation of the feed algorithm would be a massive 1A violation.

Not sure what public infrastructure has to do with it. Access to public infrastructure doesn't confer the right to regulate anything beyond how the public infrastructure is used. And in the case of Meta, the internet infrastructure they rely on is overwhelmingly private anyway.

▲

mikem170 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If algorithm output is protected by the 1st amendment then perhaps Section 230 [0] protections should no longer apply, and they should be liable for what they and their algorithms choose to show people.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

	▲	advael 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That seems a hell of a lot better than repealing section 230 altogether. I also agree with the rest of this argument. Either the editorial choices made by an algorithm are a neutral platform or they're protected speech. They certainly aren't just whatever's convenient for a tech company in any given moment
	▲	terminalshort 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What has that got to do with anything? Not at all related to the topic of research or algorithmic control. All that does is make companies potentially liable if somebody slanders somebody else on their site.