Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

somdude04 t1_j9l13bt wrote

If a Barnes and Noble buys and front-faces more of a book at store #723 because it's been selling a bunch there, they're not obligated to read it and verify it's not libelous or whatever. It's their choice, but having a book isn't an explicit endorsement of it. So why would YouTube, which is effectively like a chain of stores selling videos (with one store per person), be liable if they advertise videos to someone (as they're effectively the sole customer at an individual store).

12

seaburno t1_j9l34e6 wrote

The difference is because B&N is making the money on the sale of the book, not on the advertising at other locations in the store (or in the middle of the book).

YT isn't selling videos. They do not make money on the sale of a "product" to the end user. Instead, they are selling advertising. To increase their revenue via advertising, they are pushing content to increase the time on site.

The YouTube/Google algorithm is like saying: "Oh, you're interested in a cup of coffee? Here, try some meth instead."

15

RyanBlade t1_j9lyl2e wrote

Just curious, as I completely get where you are coming from, but would you consider the same standard for a search engine? The algorithm requires your input to search for something. Should Yahoo! be liable for the websites on the search result if they are organized by and algorithm that tries to bring the most relevant results to your query?

7

seaburno t1_j9m0rzo wrote

I probably would not hold the same standard to search engines, but with more understanding about how the search algorithms work, I could change my mind. Even if YT removed the ISIS videos at issue in the case that was heard yesterday from its algorithm, if someone just searched: "ISIS videos" and the videos came up, then I think it falls within the 230 exception, because they are merely hosting, not promoting, the videos.

Again, using the bookstore analogy, search is much more like saying to the employee: "I'm looking for information as to X" and being told its on "aisle 3, row 7 and shelf 2." In that instance, its a just a location. What you do with that location is up to you. Just because you ask Yahoo! where your nearest car dealership is and the nearest bar is doesn't mean that Yahoo! is liable because you were driving under the influence.

When you add in "promoted" search results, it gets stickier, because they're selling the advertising. So, if you asked where the nearest car dealership is, and they gave you that information and then also sent you a coupon for 12 free drinks that are good only on the day you purchased a new (to you) vehicle, that's a different story, and they may be liable.

7

RyanBlade t1_j9mpncd wrote

Gotcha, so then if you keep going back to the same book store and asking about books that are all in aisle 3 row 7. Not always shelf 2, or what ever just sticking with the analog. Is it not okay if the cashier sees you come in and mentions that they just got a new book in that section?

Clearly they are promoting it if this is your first time, probably promoting it if it is your second time, but eventually it becomes just good service. They got a book in that section, they know you keep asking for stuff that is in that area. They want to sell books, is it not okay for them to let you know about the new item?

I am not trying to slippery slope as I agree, the line between a publisher and distributor is very fuzzy with stuff like search engines,YouTube, Tik Tok, etc. I am just curious where you think the line is as I agree there probably should be one, but don’t know where.

5