[spamwich]

Section 230 protects internet hosts from liability for content posted on their platforms. In essence, it defends YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and DR against lawsuits accusing them of enabling objectionable opinions, pictures, and videos.

The merits of S230 will be argued this week. The Court chose to hear two cases—indicating possible changes to the breadth of protections. The Justices could reaffirm host immunity to posted content. They could also set precedent by holding hosts responsible.

I’m neither a lawyer nor an activist…so I don’t have predictions or suggestions. Just wanted to mention the situation to a community whose interests may be impacted by the outcome.

More details here...

47 U.S.C. § 230
47 U.S.C. § 230 - Wikipedia

Gonzalez v. Google LLC
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh

[studio83official]

This is interesting good to know thanks������

[touo1]

At least for the Gonzalez V Google case it sound like it should have never made it to the S. Court. The idea that Google should be at fault for hosting (for an unknown amount of time?) ISIS posted videos on Youtube is ridiculous, because you can't possibly come up with a perfect system that monitors the (at least) 3 mil videos that get posted daily.

Hopefully the S. Court isn't so stupid as to find them at fault, but then again it's a bunch of old fucks, so who knows how they view this kind of tech?

[ThatGiant91]

The dinosaurs will vote in favor of whatever they are paid to do so.
Probably towards the side that controls whats viewable, and holds not them responsible.

[spycosis]

They can seriously fuck off. All the mainstream news channels broadcast Al-Baghdadi's call to arms from the al Nuri mosque in Mosul that was intended for all muslims worldwide, and no doubt inspired many to support or join ISIS.
I was horrified when I saw that on the news, it seemed a very dangerous and stupid move by the MSM.

They also broadcast every single one of John Cantlie's hostage videos and his 'travel vlogs' telling us how great ISIS were.
Like the "business as usual" vlog from Mosul etc.
We watched as John wasted away on camera every week, obviously being starved to death slowly.

And all the executions they broadcast, censored, gave a very different picture than the reality. The MSM sanitized the murders, making them palatable to a wider audience of would-be terrorists.

But when less powerful media platforms show the grim reality, all of a sudden now it's a problem. and giving a mouthpiece to terrorists. A blatant example of double standards.
I hope the SC show some sensibility when they make their judgement.

[houseoftechno]

Just in: Houseoftechno LLC vs DR is last minute addition to the docket.

Houseoftechno issued press release stating the was traumatized by overenthusiastic moderation inappropriate for a so-called gore site.

[spamwich]

UPDATE on Gonzalez v. Google LLC:

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

• Supreme Court Justices voiced hesitation in upending a key legal shield that protects the tech industry from liability for their users’ posts during arguments in Gonzalez v. Google on Tuesday.
• Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concern with breaking the delicate balance set by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in their ruling on the case.

Supreme Court Justices voiced hesitation on Tuesday about upending a key legal shield that protects tech companies from liability for their users’ posts, and for how the companies moderate messages on their sites.

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.

But the justices struggled to understand where the petitioner’s counsel, Eric Schnapper, was drawing the line on what counts as content created by YouTube itself.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito at one point said he was “completely confused” by the distinction Schnapper tried to draw between YouTube’s own speech and that of a third party.

Schnapper repeatedly pointed to the thumbnail image YouTube shows users to display what video is coming up next, or is suggested based on their views. He said that thumbnail was a joint creation between YouTube and the third party that posted the video, in this case ISIS, because YouTube contributes the URL.

But several justices questioned whether that argument would apply to any attempt to organize information from the internet, including a search engine results page. They expressed concern that such a broad interpretation could have far-reaching effects the high court may not be prepared to predict.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that courts have applied Section 230 consistently since its inception in the 1990s and pointed to the amici briefs that warned overhauling that interpretation would cause massive economic consequences for many businesses, as well as their workers, consumers and investors. Kavanaugh said those are “serious concerns” Congress could consider if it sought to rework the statute. But the Supreme Court, he said, is “not equipped to account for that.”

More details here...

[spamwich]

UPDATE on Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh:

Supreme Court considers whether Twitter can be held liable for failing to remove terrorist content

• The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will help determine whether social media platforms can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism for failing to remove content and accounts promoting it.
• The case revolves around a specific international terrorist act, and contends that Twitter should be held accountable for not taking aggressive enough action against that content on its platform.
• The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the case by June.

The arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh follow those in a case with similar facts, Gonzalez v. Google, that explores whether tech platforms can be held responsible for promoting terrorist posts through their recommendation algorithms.

In that case on Tuesday, the justices seemed reluctant to overhaul the key legal liability shield in question, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held accountable for hosting their users’ posts. While many appeared sympathetic to a narrower reading of the law, several also seemed to prefer kicking the responsibility over to Congress.

In Wednesday’s case, such a consensus was more elusive, as justices tested a variety of hypotheticals on lawyers for either side as well as a representative for the U.S. government, which generally argued in favor of Twitter. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler represented the U.S. government.

The case revolves around a specific international terrorist act, and contends that Twitter should be held accountable for not taking aggressive enough action against that content on its platform. Under its policies, the social media company generally works to moderate and remove terrorist content.

The original case was brought by the American family of a victim of the Reina nightclub shooting in Istanbul in 2017 for which ISIS claimed responsibility.

Twitter’s lawyer Seth Waxman argued the company should not be held responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism in instances where it is not directly aware of the specific post or account in question. He said that to satisfy the anti-terrorism law’s standard for liability, Twitter would have had to provide substantial assistance to the act of terrorism and to know its actions would provide such assistance.

Waxman tried to draw a distinction between an open and widely used service like Twitter and a bank that provides money to a terrorist, given Know Your Customer laws that would require a bank to collect more information before providing its services, creating a greater level of knowledge than Twitter would have.

Justice Samuel Alito said he could see two different arguments for how Twitter could win, but it’s difficult to say in each where to draw the line. The first argument would be that the social media company did not know its services would be used to carry out a specific attack and the second would be that Twitter didn’t substantially assist in the attack.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that basing a win for Twitter on the knowing standard would be difficult “because willful blindness is something we have said can constitute knowledge.”

More details here...

[spamwich]

Supreme Court decisions/opinions on both cases are expected June 2023.

[spamwich]

FOLLOW-UP on both cases:

Gonzalez v. Google, Twitter v. Taamneh (9-0)

Supreme Court shields Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaves Section 230 untouched


The Supreme Court handed Silicon Valley a massive victory on Thursday as it protected online platforms from two lawsuits that legal experts had warned could have upended the internet.

The twin decisions preserve social media companies’ ability to avoid lawsuits stemming from terrorist-related content – and are a defeat for tech industry critics who say platforms are unaccountable.

In so doing, the court sided with tech industry and digital rights groups who had claimed exposing tech platforms to more liability could break the basic functions of many websites.

In one of the two cases, Twitter v. Taamneh, the Supreme Court ruled Twitter will not have to face accusations it aided and abetted terrorism when it hosted tweets created by the terror group ISIS.

The court also dismissed Gonzalez v. Google, another closely watched case about social media content moderation – sidestepping an invitation to narrow a key federal liability shield for websites, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Thursday’s decision leaves a lower court ruling in place that protected social media platforms from a broad range of content moderation lawsuits.

More details here...