Skip to content

The Law That Made the Internet

2023-03-03 · explainer · Hank · 3:55 · watch on YouTube

Topic: Internet & YouTube · mode: News analysis · tags: timely hook

Hank explains Section 230, which keeps platforms from being treated as the publisher of their users' content, and the Supreme Court case asking whether YouTube is liable for its recommendations; he finds that idea a little bit right but hard to draw the line on, is glad the Court looks unlikely to find YouTube liable, and argues new legislation, not 1996 law, should settle it.

What is said

The parts of the video and what is said in each (★ — how much it matters to the video).

00:00:00 — The New York Times' 2019 Section 230 error and its correction, as a hook on how often the law is misunderstood

  • ★★ Hank says that in August 2019 The New York Times ran an article saying Section 230 shields hate speech online, then corrected it the same day: the First Amendment protects it. — 00:00:00 · The New York Times
  • ★★ Hank finds the error kind of funny and also not, given the long history of people misunderstanding Section 230. — 00:00:24 · The New York Times

00:00:29 — What Section 230 is: its origin in the Communications Decency Act and what it says, using Hank and YouTube as the example

  • ★★ Hank says it is very hard for all of us to adjust to the internet's power, and easy to look toward Section 230, probably the most important piece of legislation in internet history. (hedged) — 00:00:29
  • ★★ Hank says the law passed as part of a much larger bill when Mark Zuckerberg was 11, and when he was 12 the Supreme Court struck down almost all of it except one section. (playful) — 00:00:40
  • ★★★ Hank reads Section 230: no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider. — 00:00:51
  • ★★ Hank explains with himself as the content provider and YouTube as the service: if he slanders someone or does something illegal, he can be sued, fined or jailed, but YouTube cannot be held liable. — 00:01:03 · YouTube

00:01:20 — The Supreme Court case on YouTube's liability for recommendations: where to draw the line, and recommendation as creation

  • ★★★ Hank says Section 230 is roughly what made the many-to-many internet possible, which is good and bad: it is both what we love and what we hate about the internet. — 00:01:20
  • ★★★ Hank reports the Supreme Court is hearing a case arguing YouTube is not liable for the content of videos on its platform but is liable for recommending that content to people. — 00:01:30 · YouTube, recommender system
  • ★★★ Hank says the argument that YouTube is not just hosting content but creating a new kind, the recommendation, seems a little bit right to him. (hedged) — 00:01:50 · recommender system, YouTube
  • ★★★ Hank says the problem is where to draw the line: is a Google search a list of recommendations, would every platform with any recommendation system be liable, and would the internet work at all? — 00:01:58 · recommender system, Google
  • ★★ Hank says it looks like the Supreme Court will not find YouTube liable in this case. (hedged) — 00:02:15 · YouTube
  • ★★ Hank thinks it is good that the Court will not find YouTube liable. — 00:02:19 · YouTube
  • ★★ Hank says there is something of a difference between an algorithmically generated YouTube front page for each user and getting recommended results when he searches. — 00:02:21 · recommender system, YouTube
  • ★ Hank says maybe both differ again from ChatGPT creating content he then reads, made by a machine. (hedged) — 00:02:31
  • ★★ Hank says recommendation can definitely be seen as creation, but he doesn't think a 1996 law did a good job of anticipating that. — 00:02:38 · recommender system
  • ★★ Hank adds that actually the law had a tremendous amount of foresight and has served us fairly well. — 00:02:45

00:02:48 — Justice Kagan's clip and Hank's conclusion: new legislation should decide; Section 230 has served us well; sign-off

  • ★★ Elena Kagan (quoted): In a clip Hank plays from the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Kagan asks why the tech industry gets a pass when every other industry has to internalize the cost of misconduct. — 00:02:55
  • ★★ Elena Kagan (quoted): Justice Kagan adds that the justices are a court, really don't know about these things, and are not the nine greatest experts on the internet. — 00:03:02
  • ★★★ Hank takes the implication to be that this shouldn't be worked out from words written in 1996, but decided by new legislation that considers the internet as it exists now. (hedged) — 00:03:12
  • ★ Hank says the provision at issue is 26 words written in 1996. — 00:03:12
  • ★★★ Hank thinks we are pretty lucky that Section 230 supported the creation of many-to-many communication, which, he admits, has drawbacks. — 00:03:24
  • ★★★ Hank doesn't think anybody has figured out a good and simple way to tease the bad parts of the many-to-many internet out from the good parts. — 00:03:33
  • ★★ Hank says past attempts to do so haven't had great outcomes, it is very hard to legislate for a fast-changing world, and if it feels like we don't know how, it's because we don't. — 00:03:42

Threads in this video

Where the stories that moved here went next

Mentioned

Central: recommender system · Section 230 · Supreme Court of the United States · YouTube

Also: People: Elena Kagan · Mark Zuckerberg

Organizations: Google · The New York Times

Concepts: hate speech · regulation

Products: ChatGPT

Policies: Communications Decency Act · First Amendment to the United States Constitution

← Previous: Empathy and its Limits · Next → What's the Deal with Paperback Publishing?