On: Judges rule Big Tech's free ride on Section 230 is...

[BriggyDwiggs42]

Aren’t there lots of regulations on safety standards for food and for cars? I think you might have chosen the wrong examples.

[pigeonhole123 → BriggyDwiggs42]

Is Mercedes liable if I run over someone on purpose in a car they made?

[leereeves → pigeonhole123]

That's a poor comparison to this case.

Would Mercedes be liable if the car (i.e. the algorithm) decided to run over someone?

[int3 → leereeves]

Does the algorithm "decide" to show something, or is it operating mechanically, driven by the inputs of the user?

[leereeves → int3]

If it is operating mechanically, then it is following a process chosen by the developers who wrote the code. They work for the company, so the consequences are still the company's responsibility.

[int3 → leereeves]

The car is following a process chosen by Mercedes' engineers (to go forward when the user presses the accelerator.) The newsfeed is likewise following a mechanistic process driven by user input (they wouldn't be showing misinformation if users weren't uploading and sharing them.)

[ang_cire → pigeonhole123]

If the Mercedes infotainment screen had shown you a curated recommendation that you run them over, prior to you doing so, they very possibly would (and should).

[cryptonector → BriggyDwiggs42]

Lack of regulations isn't the industry's fault though. I GP's example is indeed relevant.