Content selected for users by TikTok's algorithms doesn't qualify for Section 230 protection A US appeals court has issued an opinion that could have wide-ranging implications for social media platforms, finding that content selected for users by TikTok's algorithms doesn't qualify for Section 230 protection.
In an opinion [PDF] published today, a three-judge panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania decided that, because TikTok presented "blackout challenge" posts to 10-year-old Nylah Anderson on her For You Page of recommended content, the platform deserves to be taken to court for her death that followed.
The "blackout challenge" refers to a dangerous self-asphyxiation "trend" that went around on TikTok several years ago. Anderson attempted to participate in the challenge, leading to her death, but a lower-court judge decided in 2022 that TikTok was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects social media platforms from liability for content posted by their users.
The Third Circuit court sharply disagreed.
"TikTok knew that Nylah would watch [the blackout challenge video] because the company's customized algorithm placed the videos on her 'For You Page' after it 'determined that the Blackout Challenge was 'tailored' and 'likely to be of interest' to Nylah,'" Judge Paul Matey wrote in a partial concurrence included in the decision.
Matey argued that Section 230's application has evolved far beyond the original intent when Congress passed the CDA in 1996. It is not to "create a lawless no-man's land" of legal liability.
"The result is a Section 230 that immunizes platforms from the consequences of their own conduct and permits platforms to ignore the ordinary obligation that most businesses have to take reasonable steps to prevent their services from causing devastating harm," Matey said.
Judge Patty Shwartz wrote in the main body of the opinion that the Third Circuit's reading of Section 230 is reinforced by the recent Moody v NetChoice decision from the US Supreme Court. In that case, related to content moderation laws passed in Florida and Texas, SCOTUS held that algorithms reflect editorial judgments. Shwartz wrote that it's a compilation of third-party speech made in the manner a platform chooses, and thus merits First Amendment protection.
"Given the Supreme Court's observations that platforms engage in protected first-party speech under the First Amendment when they curate compilations of others' content via their expressive algorithms, it follows that doing so amounts to first-party speech under Section 230, too," Shwartz reasoned.
In short, you can't have it both ways: Either you serve everything, let users sort it out and keep that liability shield; or you make algorithmic picks that surface content, give users what you think they want and take on the liability that comes with being the arbiter of that content.
With the appeal decided, Anderson's case will head back to the District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be re-heard.
"Today's opinion is the clearest statement to date that Section 230 does not provide this catchall protection that the social media companies have been claiming it does," Anderson family lawyer Jeffrey Goodman told the Associated Press regarding the outcome.
See you all in the supreme court 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Holy shit that is an insane ruling
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is it insane? Curated content is no longer organic user content, it's now the message the company chooses to send. Saying Reddit as a company is not responsible for the posts on their front page because users moderate the boards and users create the content, but Reddit just steps in to prune what violates their standards is the same as saying I'm not responsible for the giant peepee I've left unmowed in my yard because I didn't touch the grass. Moderated content SHOULD lose section 230 protections.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Recommending videos similar to a user's viewing habits is totally different than what you are describing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Recommendations" on nearly any popular platform are never isolated to a single viewer's interests, good examples of this include google altering users' search queries to feature brands rather than product types, and youtube's search feature ending the results early to fill half the page with unrelated content.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No, they're deliberate choices made by the product team. They could have gone one way, or another. The content on Tiktok is even more strongly dictated than if it were displayed universally to all users
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This is theoretically true, but recommendation algorithms have gone way past that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
How can you make a recommendation algorithm that can account for all types of harmful content?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't really care about the answer to that. Moderate content and accept the responsibility for that or don't
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yes, you are correct, and companies should be strictly liable for things their algorithm does.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You can't. Total algorithm death.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
What could possibly go wrong
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Tfw I can no longer recommend products to consumers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your HVAC guy recommending you to buy the specific brand of air conditioner is not exactly the same as tiktok telling a child to rope
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Death is a commodity
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Good. Maybe if you were a little better at it you wouldn't be in this mess
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context