[ad_1]
In an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that questions whether tech companies can be held liable for damages related to content recommendations generated by algorithms, Google said in a brief this week that it “has the ability to grow the Internet.”
The case, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, is a long-awaited opportunity for the Supreme Court to challenge the interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230, a politically charged provision of federal law, prevents technology companies from being held liable for content posted by third parties on their platforms, but allows those same companies to identify or block certain content.
The case originated in The complaint was filed by Reynaldo Gonzalez, whose daughter was killed in a 2015 attack by members of the terrorist group ISIS in Paris. Gonzalez argued that Google helped recruit ISIS members because YouTube, an online video hosting service owned by Google, was used. A video recommendation algorithm that suggests videos published by ISIS to individuals who have shown interest in the group.
Gonzalez’s complaint argues that YouTube should not only provide a platform for IS videos by recommending content, but should also be held liable for their damages.
Dystopia warning
The case has attracted the attention of many interested parties, including free speech advocates who want to keep tech companies’ liability shields largely intact. Others argue that because tech companies take affirmative action to keep certain content off the platform, their claims are simple transmissions, and therefore should be held accountable for the content they publish.
In short, Google paints a grim picture of what could happen if the latter interpretation succeeds, “turning the Internet into a dystopia where providers face legal pressure to censor any objectionable content.” Some may obey; No matter how much others protest, they may want to roll their eyes and drop everything to escape responsibility.
Not everyone shares Google’s concerns.
“All it really does is make Google and other tech companies follow the law like everybody else,” Megan Irio, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told VOA.
Because of Section 230, things aren’t so good on the Internet for certain groups of people, Iorio said, and the organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “Section 230 prevents tech companies from responding when a person is told that non-consensual pornography has been posted on their website and is spreading. Courts don’t have to raise other things that violate that person’s right to privacy. So, you know, to [say] Returning to the original understanding of Section 230 is the insistence that it creates the appearance of hell.
Unexpected results
Experts say the Supreme Court may try to chart a narrower course that leaves some protections intact for tech companies but allows liability for suggestions. However, due to the prevalence of algorithmic recommendations on the Internet, the only means of organizing referrals available online, any decision affecting them can have a significant impact.
“It has very deep implications because technology law and technology law can have unintended consequences,” said John Villasenor, professor of engineering and law and director of UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy.
“The challenge is that even a narrow decision, such as a finding that targeted recommendations are not met, can have all the more complicated downstream consequences,” Villasenor said. “If targeted recommendations are not protected under the Liability Shield, is it true that search results that are somehow tailored to a particular user are also not protected?”
26 words
The key language in Section 230 is called “The 26 Words That Created the Internet.” That section reads as follows.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service may be deemed a publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
In the year When the law was drafted in the 1990s, people around the world were flocking to the nascent Internet. An open question was whether an Internet platform that gave third parties the ability to post content on them, such as a bulletin board service, was legally responsible for that content.
Recognizing that the development of state-level defamation and defamation laws left growing Internet companies vulnerable to crippling lawsuits, Congress drafted language to protect them. This protection is widely accepted as US technology companies, especially in Silicon Valley, have dominated the Internet in the 21st century.
Because U.S. tech companies have a global reach, the decision in Gonzalez and Google LLC could reverberate beyond the United States.
Legal basis
The basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case was laid in the year In 2020, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in response to the appeal, “In the appropriate case, we must consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute is consistent with the current situation. Immunity enjoyed by Internet forums.”
The statement by Thomas, the court’s most conservative member, emboldened many who worry that “big tech” firms have too much cultural power in the US, including the ability to deny a platform to those who disagree with their views.
Gonzalez and Google LLC’s many cases before the Supreme Court are remarkable in part because they are doing so because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings that require an authoritative ruling from the high court to provide legal clarity.
Gonzalez’s lawsuit was rejected by two lower courts, both of which ruled that Section 230 exempted Google from the lawsuit.
Conservative concerns
Politicians have been calling for Section 230 reform for years, with both Republicans and Democrats joining the chorus, though often for different reasons.
Former President Donald Trump has regularly lashed out at big tech companies, threatening to use the federal government to help them, especially when he believes they or their supporters are preventing them from getting their messages to the public.
His concerns intensified during the early years of the Covid-19 pandemic, when tech companies began cracking down on social media accounts that misinformation about the virus and the safety of vaccines.
In the year Trump eventually fired Twitter and Facebook, using those platforms to spread false claims about the 2020 presidential election and organizing a rally ahead of a January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
Major figures in the Republican Party are active in Gonzalez’s case. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz both filed briefs on the issue urging Google and big tech companies in general to take action against Google.
“Confident in their ability to avoid accountability, platforms have not been shy about restricting access and removing content based on the speaker’s politics, which is the case when big tech companies censor and remove content that promotes conservative political views,” Cruz wrote. .
Biden called for reform
Criticism of Section 230 has come from both directions. On Wednesday, President Joe Biden published an essay in The Wall Street Journal He urged Democrats and Republicans to pass strong bipartisan legislation to hold Big Tech accountable.
Biden advocates for a number of reforms, including improved privacy protections for individuals, especially children, and stronger competition, but leaves no doubt that he sees a need for reform to Section 230.
“[W]They want Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they distribute and the algorithms they use,” he wrote. “That’s why I say we need to fundamentally overhaul Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which holds tech companies legally responsible for the content they post on their websites.”
[ad_2]
Source link