That block quote doesn't say what you think it says, Matty.
But I'm not surprised that you yet again brilliantly display your complete lack of literacy.
If autocomplete were to typically write novel suggestions, then I suspect that it would not be useful at its intended purpose.
The main problem here is that the definition in the bill is so broad and vague as to be useless. What does "novel" mean in this context?
Strictly speaking, if your autocomplete has built-in AI and you do one of those "use autocomplete to write a sentence", you could write something that could easily be defined as "novel".
Hence the probability of covering autocomplete by the definition given.
I don't see anyone making that argument, but even if defamatory content was spread on a platform, the only guilty party would stil be the original speaker.
If the algorithmically generated content is substantially similar to the input, e.g. if you’re using an algorithm to summarize a web page, then it’s protected. If the content is something mostly new, and only based on a user prompt, e.g. most of what people are doing with LLMs, then it isn’t.
I just used an LLM to summarize "Flowers of Algernon". Where is your god now?
By wanting editorial decisions to not be protected under section 230, you want the government, by extension of the law, to intervene in the free speech of platforms.
And there's nothing about section 230 that's stopping anyone from suing for defamation. Section 230 just puts the onus on the actual speaker, instead of the platform carrying the speech.
And no, defamation lawsuits are not “the government”, that’s just the dumbest thing.
Well, defamation cases are almost always decided by a judge, which is, you know, a government employee.
But tell me again how facts are "just the dumbest thing".
At the end of the day, they’re private companies and can do what they like.
Don’t like it? Make your own car.
Oh yes, trying to create a suitable replacement. The only solution to greedy business fuckery, as we all know.
Apart from, you know, just not giving in to the greedy business fuckery in the first place.
You're projecting your contrarian nature again, Matty.
Damn it, fucked up the post.
Then why does the lawsuit say that the reporting was factual and accurate? It's not a defamation lawsuit, and even if it were, no, it wouldn't.That block quote doesn't say what you think it says, Matty. But I'm not surprised that you yet again brilliantly display your complete lack of literacy.
I don't see anyone making that argument, but even if defamatory content was spread on a platform, the only guilty party would stil be the original speaker.
Why do you want there to be a middle-ground?
By wanting editorial decisions to not be protected under section 230, you want the government, by extension of the law, to intervene in the free speech of platforms. And there's nothing about section 230 that's stopping anyone from suing for defamation. Section 230 just puts the onus on the actual speaker, instead of the platform carrying the speech.
Well, defamation cases are almost always decided by a judge, which is, you know, a government employee. But tell me again how facts are "just the dumbest thing".Why do you want the government to meddle when it comes to free speech, Matthew? Aren't you usually in favour of free speech?
Google:
Don't Be EvilDon't Be PrincipledThe more you keep spamming this bullshit in the comments, the more it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of it rather than everyone else.