How did you find it in the first place? A search? Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people), all you'll see is pages and pages of SEO.
Opening up liability like this is a quagmire that's not going to do good things for the internet.
«Had Nylah viewed a Blackout Challenge video through TikTok’s search function, rather than through her FYP, then TikTok may be viewed more like a repository of third-party content than an affirmative promoter of such content.»
The question though is how do you do a useful search without having some kind of algorithmic answer to what you think the user will like. Explicit user or exact match strings are simple but if I search "cats" looking for cat videos how does that list get presented without being a curated list made by the company?
For example, just today there was a highly entertaining and interesting article about how to replace a tablet-based thermostat. And it was posted on the internet, and surfaced via an algorithm on Hacker News.
Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people)
Do you genuinely believe a judge is going to rule that a Boyer-Moore implementation is fundamentally biased? It seems likely that sticking with standard string matching will remain safe.
How did you find it in the first place? A search? Without any kind of filtering (that's an algorithm that could be used to manipulate people), all you'll see is pages and pages of SEO.
Opening up liability like this is a quagmire that's not going to do good things for the internet.