It’s a significant data point on the potential limits of Section 230.
TikTok has to face a lawsuit from the mother of 10-year-old Nylah Anderson, who “unintentionally hanged herself” after watching videos of the so-called blackout challenge on her algorithmically curated For You Page (FYP). The “challenge,” according to the suit, encouraged viewers to “choke themselves until passing out.”
TikTok’s algorithmic recommendations on the FYP constitute the platform’s own speech, according to the Third Circuit court of appeals. That means it’s something TikTok can be held accountable for in court. Tech platforms are typically protected by a legal shield known as Section 230, which prevents them from being sued over their users’ posts, and a lower court had initially dismissed the suit on those grounds.
In the US, publically traded companies have a legal obligation to make as much money for their shareholders as legally possible (See Ford getting sued by shareholders after giving workers raises). It would be borderline illegal for a company to adjust their algorithm in a way that makes them less competitive.
This needs to be regulated by government, not the companies themselves. Thay would mean that the companies would be forced to all change their algorithms at the same time, and not impact their competitiveness.
So the government going after tiktok is a good first step, IF it does the same thing to Facebook / instagram / YouTube / snapchat. But I’m betting it won’t be because those companies spend an absurd amount of money on lobbying.
This is a false narrative that stock traders push. The fiduciary duty is just one of several that executives have, and does not outweigh the duty to the company health or to employees. Obviously shareholders will try to argue otherwise or even sue to get their way, because they only care about their own interests, but they won’t prevail in most cases if there was a legitimate business interest and justification for the actions.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
In the US, publically traded companies have a legal obligation to make as much money for their shareholders as legally possible (See Ford getting sued by shareholders after giving workers raises). It would be borderline illegal for a company to adjust their algorithm in a way that makes them less competitive.
This needs to be regulated by government, not the companies themselves. Thay would mean that the companies would be forced to all change their algorithms at the same time, and not impact their competitiveness.
So the government going after tiktok is a good first step, IF it does the same thing to Facebook / instagram / YouTube / snapchat. But I’m betting it won’t be because those companies spend an absurd amount of money on lobbying.
This is a false narrative that stock traders push. The fiduciary duty is just one of several that executives have, and does not outweigh the duty to the company health or to employees. Obviously shareholders will try to argue otherwise or even sue to get their way, because they only care about their own interests, but they won’t prevail in most cases if there was a legitimate business interest and justification for the actions.