Supreme Court justices in Google case express hesitation about upending Section 230

[Kaz]

Quote

Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concern with breaking the delicate balance set by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as they rule on the pivotal case, Gonzalez v. Google, even as some suggested a narrower reading of the liability shield could sometimes make sense.

 

The current case was brought by the family of an American killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. The petitioners argue that Google, through its subsidiary YouTube, violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by aiding and abetting ISIS, as it promoted the group's videos through its recommendation algorithm. Lower courts sided with Google, saying Section 230 protects the company from being held liable for third-party content posted on its service.

 

The petitioners contend that YouTube's recommendations actually constitute the company's own speech, which would fall outside the bounds of the liability shield.

Source

 

This is a major case.  At it's core it threatens every social media platform.

 

Platforms have long been protected because "it's our users!".

 

When they start pushing certain topics/objectives, or even singling out users for content, they are no longer just a content host, but an advocate.

 

Be it an advocate for certain topics, or an advocate for certain companies (advertisements), the argument of, "We are just a host", deserves scrutiny.

 

I think Judges are afraid of ruling against the most impactful industry in the world, because...  Money...

 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over a more decentralized internet...  I do wish it was challeneged on a basis other than tightening government control over content...

Edited February 23, 2023 by Kaz
added a paragraph in quotes

[UltraMega]

It would be hilarious if they repealed it without replacing it and suddenly all the media outlets profiting from misinformation become criminally liable. Won't happen tho. 

[Diffident]

They can't repeal the law unless the law is unconstitutional, but this isn't a constitutional matter, it's only whether section 230 applies. 

 

My guess is, the court will uphold the lower courts ruling. 

 

Money is irrelevant, Judges make or are supposed to make rulings based on law, not on what they want the law to be, or who may lose money from a ruling.  

[tictoc]

8 hours ago, Kaz said:

I wouldn't lose any sleep over a more decentralized internet...  I do wish it was challeneged on a basis other than tightening government control over content...

 

Speaking of a more decetralized internet, here's a de-Googled source link  : https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/supreme-court-justices-in-google-case-hesitate-to-upend-section-230.html

[Kaz]

2 hours ago, tictoc said:

 

Speaking of a more decetralized internet, here's a de-Googled source link  : https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/supreme-court-justices-in-google-case-hesitate-to-upend-section-230.html

Updated OP, thanks