Jul 3, 2026, 7:26 PM@TallSimon "Recommendation" is generally a different category than AI. The key issue with AI is that "original" content is being created, not simply references to third party content. This is a crucial difference which pushes Section 230 protections out of scope. The same issue applies to monetization. The crucial issue is creation of new content.
@lauren @TallSimon And broadly speaking that distinction probably should be made (i.e. having an "algorithm" other than a chronological subscription feed shouldn't be completely outlawed).
Though some specific cases should see more scrutiny. Like investigating X to see how much it is manipulating things to promote what Elon Musk agrees with.
At some point, that starts to look more like a publisher with its own editorial positons, and not merely a neutral platform.
Jul 3, 2026, 8:49 PM@ids1024 @TallSimon 230 is pretty explicit. Attempting to fold other stuff into the same category as AI (absent actual changes to 230 itself) is not a good idea.
( @pluralistic has forcefully made the same point to me that you have; I respectfully appreciate the chance to hone my argument.)
§230(c)(1) uses the phrase "publisher or speaker" (I'm looking at Law.Cornell.edu).
I agree with you that generated AI material makes a platform the Speaker, and I agree that the Speaker of user-provided information is the user themselves, who is liable for it.
If the platform intentionally, by what ever means, selects that provided information to make money, say by directing it to me along with paid advertising, then I argue that this is a new act. By that act, the platform has become the Publisher.
Origination or creation is then no longer the only issue. This is also a separate issue from the removal of information already communicated, moderation.
No change to §230 is needed, just a judicial recognition that the platform's new act puts it in the legally recognized role of Publisher, and liable along with the Speaker (as a print newspaper would be).
Jul 3, 2026, 10:27 PM@TallSimon @pluralistic 230 has been deeply thrashed out over the years, because monetization and feed ordering have long been the normal behaviors. States have been attempting to use other laws to go after those aspects, but conflating that stuff with AI is the wrong approach. Keep your eye on the ball. The ball is AI.
Jul 3, 2026, 10:30 PM@TallSimon @pluralistic Another important point is that most people don't really care about the algorithms and monetization. There are groups that do, but it's just a drop in the bucket compared with the vast bipartisan blowback over AI. So again, keep your eye on the ball.