Zuckerberg’s rebranding tour: The real problems are in the algorithms, not the tech companies. The case against your uncle insult your strawberry pie

During a recent rebranding tour, sporting Gen Z-approved tousled hair, streetwear and a gold chain, the Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg let the truth slip: Consumers no longer control their social-media feeds. He thinks the future of feeds will show you “content that’s generated by an A.I. system.”, because Meta’s algorithms has improved to the point that it is showing users “a lot of stuff” not posted by people they had connected with.

Then, of course, things got a little darker. Not everything Uncle Bob shared was accurate, and the platforms’ algorithms prioritized outrageous, provocative content from anyone with internet access over more neutral, fact-based reporting. Despite this, the tech companies’ lawyers continued to argue, successfully, that they were not responsible for the content shared on their platforms — no matter how misleading or dangerous.

The problem has to be solved first. Section 229, a part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, was supposed to protect tech companies from claims relating to posts made by users. It made sense in the early days of social media, when we mostly chose the content we saw, based on whom we liked on sites such as Facebook. It was very easy for companies to argue that they shouldn’t be blamed if your uncle insulted your strawberry pie on social media.

WIRED and Dow Jones cite Perplexity: Copyright Infringement by the New York Times, Dow Jones, and the Wall Street Journal

The New York Times sent the company a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month, saying they were using the newspaper’s content without permission. This summer, both Forbes and WIRED detailed how Perplexity appeared to have plagiarized stories. The Condé Nast company sent cease-and-desist letters to Forbes and WIRED.

Dow Jones (the publisher of the Wall Street Journal) and the New York Post—both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp—brought the copyright infringement lawsuit against Perplexity today in the US Southern District of New York.

A WIRED investigation from this summer, cited in this lawsuit, detailed how Perplexity inaccurately summarized WIRED stories, including one instance in which it falsely claimed that WIRED had reported on a California-based police officer committing a crime he did not commit. The WSJ reported earlier today that Perplexity is seeking to raise $500 million is its next funding round, at an $8 billion valuation.

Dow Jones and the New York Post provide examples of Perplexity allegedly “hallucinating” fake sections of news stories. generative models produce false or wholly fabricated material and present it as fact.

In one case, Perplexity Pro first put out word for word a New York Post story about Jim Jordan sparring with the European Union Commissioner, but then followed that with five paragraphs about free speech and online regulation.