odinlubumeta t1_j9mii9b wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:06 AM

Reply to comment by SnooPuppers1978 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123

First it’s entertainment. How people can just publicly put entertainment over human life’s to me is so odd.

Second why can’t they adapt? We don’t know what the rules would be but we have all these algorithms and machine learning and soon to be AI, but these billion (soon to be trillion) dollar companies can find a way to adapt?

And yes it’s a stupid argument if your point is that corporations that can’t adapt shouldn’t come to an end. Are they also too big too fail? Seriously I want you to make an argument that a company shouldn’t have to adapt to the laws and have them written around the biggest companies.

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9mkw82 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:23 AM

People put entertainment over human lives every single day. Every action you do is a trade off. Any time you spend on entertainment could be spent on helping saving lives.

I am just saying that it should be considered based on trade offs.

odinlubumeta t1_j9mos8f wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:52 AM

I am not sure I understand your point. You are saying that the lawmakers should consider entertainment value when writing the laws?

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9myv2z wrote on February 23, 2023 at 3:07 AM

Yes, but in general all umbrella of different values. Since it is also practicality and productivity. Search and auto recommenders and other types of AI systems.

odinlubumeta t1_j9n3gye wrote on February 23, 2023 at 3:44 AM

I never said to ignore everything than safety. I said you don’t make laws based on keep a few companies (that can’t adapt) afloat.

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9n5qc2 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM

The issue is that no company could provide such a service if there is no protection for algorithmic content filtering or suggestions.

odinlubumeta t1_j9n9xlq wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:39 AM

I don’t believe that they couldn’t survive without their current algorithm. Google and Facebook were profitable well before they came up with their current algorithms. Advertisers aren’t just going to disappear. But let’s say they just couldn’t, then they absolutely should go away and let a new company that can figure out how to survive under whatever laws exist. If you have a void someone will find a way to profit off it. You don’t have a viable business if you can only survive with one set of laws. Laws have changed so many times since Americas founding. Adapt.

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9ncx0u wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:07 AM

YouTube for example wouldn't be what it is now. It would affect the whole ecosystem of different things, people livelihoods, because so much depends on those things. Content creators for discovery etc. You wouldn't be able to have personalised experience in YouTube or anywhere with third party content. And Reddit for that matter.

I for one want to have personalised content.

I hate the times of curated content like TV was or otherwise. I want to view content on demand, created by anyone and what is relevant to me.

But pretty sure it is going to be ruled in Google's favour anyway because of the sheer impracticality.

odinlubumeta t1_j9nksk5 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 6:30 AM

Again you are arguing for things you like or it seems your needs. YouTube existed before it had an algorithm. You act as if this stuff can’t exist without it’s very predatory ad algorithm. People would also adapt. It’s a poor argument. There are technologies that will come that don’t currently exist and you will adapt to them, but giant corporations can’t?

And you are also arguing we can’t make new laws because content creators would either have to evolve or go away? You know we once had a giant book industry. Most people who worked in them had to find new jobs. We certainly don’t make laws to keep everything static.

I am sure it will go Googles way. They have a massive lobby and billions to spend. That’s not the argument. The fact that your whole argument seems to be that you like where things are is a poor argument. The southerners loved having slaves and change was so hard for them that they literally went to war to try to keep things the way they lived. That’s not a good argument then and it isn’t now. You don’t make laws for selfish wants.