Wild Westworld: The Application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to Social Networks’ Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms
Wild Westworld: The Application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to Social Networks’ Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms
复制标题
狂野西部世界：《通信规范法案》第 230 条在社交网络使用机器学习算法方面的应用
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Catherine A. Tremble
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Catherine A. Tremble
2016年8月10日，一份在纽约东区提交的投诉正式指控Facebook协助执行恐怖袭击。投诉描述了用户生成的帖子和团体，宣传和指导煽动恐怖活动。根据《通信规范法》（CDA）第230条，Facebook等互动服务提供商（ISP）不能对用户生成的内容承担责任，因为ISP没有创建或开发信息。然而，这起案件之所以引人注目，是因为它不仅要让Facebook对第三方的内容负责，还要对其个性化的机器学习算法（或“服务”）对恐怖分子策划和执行攻击的能力产生的影响负责。通过指控Facebook的行为超出了单纯的发布行为，包括实际服务对恐怖分子更有效地执行攻击的能力的影响，该投诉试图阻止法院授予Facebook第230条豁免权。这份说明认为，Facebook的服务-特别是通过使用机器学习算法对社交媒体页面进行个性化-构成了内容的“开发”，因此不符合CDA第230条规定的豁免权。认识到将静态法规应用于不断变化的技术环境的挑战，本说明分析了第230条原则的最新审慎演变，以修改早期案例中应用的原始分析框架。该框架以国会和公共政策目标为指导，但不断发展，以展示对技术发展和能力的认识。它特别调整了第230条的豁免权，以考虑为ISP使用而挖掘的行为数据，以及使用这些数据对用户的影响-这是法院尚未面对的两个问题。本说明的结论是，在更新的第230条框架下，通过收集个性化行为数据而有效的个性化机器学习算法使ISP成为内容的共同开发者，因此禁止他们获得第230条豁免权。
On August 10th, 2016, a complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York formally accused Facebook of aiding the execution of terrorist attacks. The complaint depicted user-generated posts and groups promoting and directing the incitement of terrorist activities. Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), Interactive Service Providers (ISPs), such as Facebook, cannot be held liable for user-generated content where the ISP did not create or develop the information. However, this case stands out because it seeks to hold Facebook liable not only for the content of third parties, but also for the effect its personalized machine-learning algorithms — or “services” — have had on the ability of terrorists to orchestrate and execute attacks. By alleging that Facebook’s conduct goes beyond the mere act of publication, and includes the actual services’ effect on terrorists’ abilities to more effectively execute attacks, the complaint seeks to prevent the court from granting section 230 immunity to Facebook. This Note argues that Facebook’s services — specifically the personalization of social media pages through the use of machine-learning algorithms — constitute the “development” of content and as such do not qualify for immunity under section 230 of the CDA. Recognizing the challenge of applying a static statute to a shifting technological landscape, this Note analyzes recent jurisprudential evolutions in section 230 doctrine to revise the original analytical framework applied in early cases. This Framework is guided by congressional and public policy goals but evolves to demonstrate awareness of technological evolution and ability. It specifically tailors section 230 immunity to account for behavioral data mined for ISP use, and the effect the use of that data has on users — two issues that courts have yet to confront. This Note concludes that, under the updated section 230 framework, personalized machine-learning algorithms made effective through the collection of individualized behavioral data make ISPs co-developers of content and as such bar them from section 230 immunity.