Ignoring for the moment possible regulatory moves on the order of the breakup of the monopoly Bell system (AT&T divestiture) or the Microsoft consent decree, ChatGPT itself poses some new possible issues for Google and other firms that incorporate ChatGPT as part of their operations.
Though a subtle matter, ChatGPT arguably changes ecosystem roles. Today, Google’s search responses arguably remain in the realm of “finding products and content” rather than “creating products and content.”
A search query produces results created by third parties. A ChatGPT query produces something very different: a specific answer and formulation. The analogy might be that ChatGPT makes its sponsor a content creator; a publisher.
Search, in principle, only makes the provider an aggregator of third party content.
In some countries, that distinction can be significant. Today, in some countries, aggregators are not legally responsible for content third parties create. But publishers of content (newspapers, radio and TV stations, magazines, news and opinion sites) can legally be held responsible for what they choose to publish.
In some instances, that is anything but a subtle difference. The legal defense for an aggregator is that laws protect it from liability when others say things. Of course, in some countries publishers also have protection from prosecution when “reporting the news” or “offering an opinion,” with the exception of willful publishing of material known to be untrue, and injurious to people who are not public figures.
So ChatGPT raises new issues about whether aggregators and search engines are “merely” conduits for third party information or now become something more like “speakers” in their own right.
Whether this change ultimately changes legal liabilities is unclear at the moment. Whether those possible levels of legal and financial exposure affect content moderation policies likewise is unclear.
But it is a new area of uncertainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment