The Supreme Court could throw the internet into chaos

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
On Tuesday, the justices will hear Gonzalez v. Google, a case whose decision could wipe away what are called the 26 words that created the internet. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most content contributed by third parties — which means that when individuals send defamatory tweets or post inciting comments, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and their peers aren’t held legally responsible. Gonzalez asks a slightly more complicated question: When platforms algorithmically promote those tweets, comments or, in this instance, videos, does their legal shield disappear?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/gonzalez-v-google-supreme-court-section-230/
 
BidenPresident said:
On Tuesday, the justices will hear Gonzalez v. Google, a case whose decision could wipe away what are called the 26 words that created the internet. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most content contributed by third parties — which means that when individuals send defamatory tweets or post inciting comments, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and their peers aren’t held legally responsible. Gonzalez asks a slightly more complicated question: When platforms algorithmically promote those tweets, comments or, in this instance, videos, does their legal shield disappear?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/gonzalez-v-google-supreme-court-section-230/
Click to expand...


Yes
 
BidenPresident said:
On Tuesday, the justices will hear Gonzalez v. Google, a case whose decision could wipe away what are called the 26 words that created the internet. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most content contributed by third parties — which means that when individuals send defamatory tweets or post inciting comments, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and their peers aren’t held legally responsible. Gonzalez asks a slightly more complicated question: When platforms algorithmically promote those tweets, comments or, in this instance, videos, does their legal shield disappear?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/gonzalez-v-google-supreme-court-section-230/
Click to expand...

Too bad the article is behind a pay wall. Interesting question. Wouldn't plaintiffs have to prove that the algorithms deliberately promote certain material? Or is it more likely that they are constructed to push material with the highest viewership to the top of the heap, regardless of content?

If someone posts on Craigslist looking for a hit man to snuff their spouse, is Craigslist liable if they find one and the spouse is murdered?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Too bad the article is behind a pay wall. Interesting question. Wouldn't plaintiffs have to prove that the algorithms deliberately promote certain material? Or is it more likely that they are constructed to push material with the highest viewership to the top of the heap, regardless of content?

If someone posts on Craigslist looking for a hit man to snuff their spouse, is Craigslist liable if they find one and the spouse is murdered?
Click to expand...

Too bad.
 
BidenPresident said:
On Tuesday, the justices will hear Gonzalez v. Google, a case whose decision could wipe away what are called the 26 words that created the internet. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most content contributed by third parties — which means that when individuals send defamatory tweets or post inciting comments, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and their peers aren’t held legally responsible. Gonzalez asks a slightly more complicated question: When platforms algorithmically promote those tweets, comments or, in this instance, videos, does their legal shield disappear?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/gonzalez-v-google-supreme-court-section-230/
Click to expand...

What time does it start?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top