The US Supreme Court recently heard arguments in two cases that question the level of liability tech companies should face for harmful content on their platforms.
Nohemi Gonzalez Case
The first case involves the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student killed in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The family claims that YouTube’s recommendations aided the terrorist group’s recruitment, raising questions about the extent to which Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields tech companies from liability. Critics argue that the industry-friendly interpretation of the law has made it difficult to hold Big Tech companies accountable.
Istanbul Nightclub Attack Case
The second case involves a 2017 terrorist attack at a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, which killed 39 people. It prompted a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google, which owns YouTube.
Criticism from Both Sides
Tech companies face criticism from both the left and the right. The left accuses companies of not doing enough to remove harmful content from the internet, while the right accuses them of censoring conservative speech.
History of Section 230
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was created in response to a state court decision that an internet company could be liable for a post by one of its users in an online forum. The law’s primary purpose was to “protect Internet platforms’ ability to publish and present user-generated content in real-time, and to encourage them to screen and remove illegal or offensive content,” according to its authors.
Recommendations at the Heart of the Debate
Recommendations are at the heart of the Supreme Court case. The Gonzalez family and its supporters argue that companies need to do more to control the content, particularly in curbing computer algorithms’ recommendations of illegal or offensive content to users. They also argue that courts have read the law too broadly.
Implications for the Tech Industry and the Internet
The court’s ruling could have significant implications for the tech industry and the broader internet. A ruling in favor of the Gonzalez family could force tech companies to be held liable for harmful content posted by users, potentially changing the internet landscape forever. Tech companies and their supporters argue that even a narrow ruling against them would have far-reaching effects, potentially restricting searches for jobs, restaurants, and merchandise.
