On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will consider a law that since 1996 has shielded tech companies from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms.
Nine judges will hear a case related to the November 2015 attacks in Paris and their decision, expected by June 30, could have far-reaching implications for the future of the Internet.
The lawsuit stems from a complaint filed against Google by relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, one of the 130 victims of the attacks in the French capital.
The American was studying in France and was killed by Islamic State group attackers at the Belle Equipe bar.
His family accuses Google-owned YouTube of recommending jihadi group videos to users, helping to incite violence.
According to the family, “By recommending ISIS videos to users, Google helps ISIS spread its message and thereby provides material support to ISIS,” a legal brief said.
The complaint was dismissed by federal courts in favor of a law known as Section 230, which was passed when the Internet was in its infancy and has become one of its pillars.
Section 230 states that internet companies in the US cannot be considered publishers and have statutory immunity for content posted on their platforms.
What’s new about the Gonzalez case is that the plaintiffs are singling out algorithms as the cause of harm, arguing that the highly complex recommendation systems accomplished by large platforms are outside the scope of Section 230.
“The selection of users to whom ISIS videos were recommended was determined by a computer algorithm created and implemented by YouTube,” the Gonzalez family’s legal brief said.
The Supreme Court gets through the vast majority of cases that come its way, and its hearings indicate a desire to amend historic law.
Big Tech Cool Sweat
The prospect of the Supreme Court tinkering with Article 230 is causing cold sweat in the tech world.
In legal filings, Google pleaded that the court “not diminish the central building blocks of the modern Internet.”
“Recommendation algorithms are what make it possible to find the needles in humanity’s biggest haystack,” Google said.
By allowing platforms to sue for their algorithms, “they would face liability for third-party content virtually all the time,” Facebook owner Metta said in a brief that suggested uploading recommendations. Works to organize content.
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will continue its consideration of a similar case, but this time asking whether the platform should be subject to anti-terrorism laws.
In the past, several Supreme Court justices have expressed a willingness to move the lines on Section 230, which has been increasingly contested in recent years in the face of a backlash against big tech.
In 2021, the ultraconservative Clarence Thomas lamented that “many courts have broadly construed the law to grant massive immunity to some of the world’s largest companies.”
Lawmakers in the US Congress are too divided politically to pass legislation that would update the law, which was enacted when Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was 11 years old and Google didn’t exist. was
Given the deep political divide, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will move faster than Congress.
But for now, “nobody quite knows how,” said Tom Wheeler, an expert at the Brookings Institution think tank. “That’s why it’s important to see how the hearing goes,” he told JEE News.
