![]() A related case which the court will hear Wednesday, Twitter v. Google’s isn’t the only case presenting a potential challenge to Section 230 next week. ![]() A lower court ruled in Google’s favor citing 230’s protections and the Gonzalez family turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 230 covers content, but not the algorithmic content recommendations in question. The Gonzalez family is alleging the Google-owned service Youtube was complicit in radicalizing ISIS combatants in the buildup to a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris that killed 130 people-including 23-year old Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student who was studying abroad. Google case different from previous attempts to refine Section 230 is that the issue is being brought in front of the Supreme Court instead of Congress for the first time, and could set a precedent for future interpretations of the law.Īt the core of its argument is the spread of pro-terrorist messaging on online platforms. “Because is a high-stakes piece to the puzzle, I think there's a lot of different viewpoints on how it should be updated or reformed and what we should do about it,” Krapf said. Her organization has filed an amicus brief over Google’s case on the plaintiff’s behalf urging the Supreme Court to consider the ramifications of Section 230’s immunity provision.īut given how far-reaching the effects of Section 230 are, reaching an agreement on how best to revise it is no easy task. “We are at a point where Congress really does need to update Section 230,” Krapf said. ![]() But how and to what extent the law should be refined has so far escaped consensus. Even tech leaders including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg have proposed that Congress should require platforms to demonstrate they have systems in place to identify unlawful content. ![]() The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, says that without Section 230, “the free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist,” while the law’s provision protecting internet companies is often referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet.”īut those words written more than a quarter century ago have come under scrutiny in recent years, and politicians on both sides of the aisle have targeted 230 as part of a larger effort to regulate the Internet. Section 230 has allowed the internet to function the way it does today by enabling websites to publish most content without fear of legal culpability, with one 26-word provision that has been extremely influential in the formation of today’s internet: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Story continues The backbone of the modern web “The more the digital world is interwoven with our physical world, the more urgent this will become,” Lauren Krapf, lead counsel for technology policy and advocacy at the Anti-Defamation League, an anti discrimination group, told Fortune. Some experts say the Supreme Court’s decisions on these cases could represent a unique opportunity to set the rules for Section 230, but others also warn that going too far could gut 230 entirely and make our relationship with the internet scarcely recognizable. developments, like ChatGPT, have added a new dimension to the fight over 230, as the bots that have so far proven to be unreliable with providing accurate information and getting the facts right could soon be protected by the law. However, experts also fear rollbacks to Section 230 could go too far and irreparably destroy the free speech foundations upon which the internet was built. But it has come under fire in recent years from critics who say it enables misinformation and protects sites known for spreading hateful and extremist rhetoric. Section 230 is the reason why companies like Facebook or Twitter are not liable for content users create, and why a website is not legally at faultyoutu if someone writes a slanderous criticism. While the hearing is set for next week, a resolution isn’t expected until June. They argue that Section 230's protections should not apply to the content a company’s algorithm recommends online, and therefore Google is legally liable for the extremist videos published on its YouTube service. The arguments will revolve around tech algorithms, which the plaintiffs say boosted extremist messaging in the lead up to a terrorist attack. Google, a case that challenges Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that grants internet platforms immunity for most third-party content posted on their websites. On Tuesday, justices will hear arguments for Gonzalez v. But the Supreme Court is set to hear a case next week that could completely transform our online world as we know it. ![]() For years, Washington has been stumped about how to regulate the internet-or if it should even try. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |