24 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Defending the open Internet (again): Our latest brief to the Supreme Court
Related, but unrelated. Follow the logic:
reddit is defending itself from being legally responsible for its users' actions by using an semi-arm's length volunteer moderation system. At stake in this case is whether moderators are allowed to moderate: obviously, it seems likely that you will prevail, although the concept of large internet forums as being an analogue to broadcast media is understandable. There'll be more of this, because there is *something* to the idea.
So, reddit is a publisher of other people's content, and I write for free for reddit. I understand that reddit is to be receiving somewhere in the area of $60 billion to allow an AI to be trained on my content. Now, if the AI were to be allowed to be trained for free, I would have no issues, because I support this advance in technology. But because you're getting a $60 billion payout for our content, that creates a problem. Money for thee but not for me? I don't think so. *Users* are the star, here. The site is a backdrop.
So, if you are going to bat for a coalition of volunteer moderators to avoid direct oversight of each individual comment, then your argument is that you are a platform, you publish the works of others, and the mods are editors. When you charge companies to train their AIs, then your argument is that the content is your work, mods have helped to edit it, and the contribution of users disappears. Clearly that doesn't make any sense or seem to have any legal backing. I guess, as chief legal guru at the site, I was wondering if I could get a comment on that ~
Comment by glowdirt at 21/02/2024 at 21:32 UTC
13 upvotes, 0 direct replies
As chief legal guru I think he knows better than to comment on that
Comment by Bardfinn at 21/02/2024 at 21:51 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Reddit does not, legally, have the legal status of a media publisher.
Comment by BousWakebo at 21/02/2024 at 23:22 UTC
9 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It’s $60 million, not billion, but the principle is nevertheless the same.
Comment by ThunderBuss at 02/03/2024 at 09:49 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This is the digital public square. Under hb20, They just can’t delete, suppress or hide content based on someone’s viewpoint.
Doing otherwise gives a small company unbridled power to publish a narrative.
This appears to be a huge case doesn’t it? Yet nobody talks about it. What am I missing