The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

[Zincwarrior]

I would prefer that this is addressed by Congress not SCOTUS, but am wondering how this will impact websites, particularly nonSocial Media sites (like USMB).

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

A Supreme Court hearing next week could shine a light on how Congress could clamp down on tech, and the future of free speech online.

www.yahoo.com

For years, Washington has been stumped about how to regulate the internet—or if it should even try. But the Supreme Court is set to hear a case next week that could completely transform our online world as we know it.
On Tuesday, justices will hear arguments for Gonzalez v. 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. The arguments will revolve around tech algorithms, which the plaintiffs say boosted extremist messaging in the lead up to a terrorist attack. 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.
While the hearing is set for next week, a resolution isn’t expected until June.
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. 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. 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.
Recent A.I. 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.
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.
“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.

The backbone of the modern web​

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.”
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.”
But 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. 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. But how and to what extent the law should be refined has so far escaped consensus.

 

[pknopp]

To note, the headline could as well be "The internet may well stay the same".

 

[Zincwarrior]

This is true as well.

 

[Blaster]

Too much smut is being made available to impressionable children.

 

[JGalt]

Bye bye First Amendment. The wrong decision by the SC would give the government more control in deciding what's "extremist" or "hateful" speech. Don't like abortion? Then shut up about it, terrorist. You think Joe Biden is an idiot? Better keep that to yourself.

Now pick up that can, citizen.

 

[JGalt]

Too much smut is being made available to impressionable children.

How dare they! Presenting smut to children is a highly-regarded left-wing privilege.

 

[basquebromance]

while i always advocate for dialogue, civility, analysis, and understanding over spite, personal attacks, and petty condemnation, I'm okay with people who don't like what i say. that's called freedom of speech. that's called being an American

 

[pknopp]

Bye bye First Amendment. The wrong decision by the SC would give the government more control in deciding what's "extremist" or "hateful" speech. Don't like abortion? Then shut up about it, terrorist. You think Joe Biden is an idiot? Better keep that to yourself.

Now pick up that can, citizen.

I find Supreme Court rulings interesting. That will have nothing to do with any ruling out of the court. The ruling is whether or not a site can be held liable for promoting something illegal.

Technically, one could even promote something illegal as long as the site wasn't pushing that narrative to the top. Personally to me, free speech is expanded if the sites aren't the ones determining what should be at the top.

 

[Blaster]

Too much adult content is being made available to children.

 

[jotathought]

Bye bye First Amendment. The wrong decision by the SC would give the government more control in deciding what's "extremist" or "hateful" speech. Don't like abortion? Then shut up about it, terrorist. You think Joe Biden is an idiot? Better keep that to yourself.

Now pick up that can, citizen.

Exactly correct .. who would define the ambiguous terminology? For example, would it be Democrats, like Sheila Jackson, who wants to penalize white people for hate crimes if they talk negative about blacks and illegal aliens on social media? Why would the government regulate misinformation? A majority of the electorate is already misinformed as low-information voters who rely on celebrities, biased media outlets and social media for their news brief.

 

[basquebromance]

The American Dream is great, it's exceptional, but unfortunately it's in deep peril. The American Dream is threatened, and specifically by Big Tech. Americans rightfully fear that we are on a path to become like Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia, if we do nothing

 

[jotathought]

Advocates don't want to penalize technology companies for the content using their platform, which could be slanderous, misinformation, libel or inflammatory .. yet .. these same advocates want to penalize firearm manufacturers for how consumers use their products.

 

[marvin martian]

Exactly correct .. who would define the ambiguous terminology? For example, would it be Democrats, like Sheila Jackson, who wants to penalize white people for hate crimes if they talk negative about blacks and illegal aliens on social media? Why would the government regulate misinformation? A majority of the electorate is already misinformed as low-information voters who rely on celebrities, biased media outlets and social media for their news brief.

The government is, and always has been, the biggest purveyor of misinformation. Think about the 50+ "senior intelligence officials" who told the entire world that the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation". As it turns out, every one of those 50+ were easily fooled by a crack-addled pedophile (not to mention a HUGE number of American leftists, who fell for the story). If they're that dumb, they don't stand a chance against our actual enemies.

 

[Dekster]

They'll probably do a very narrow ruling while generally avoiding the big issue with Section 230 since the case is largely about the suggested video feature as opposed to the actual content. I doubt they are going to let them bootstrap content onto the algorithms argument. They could just say well the user creates the keywords via their titles, not google, so google doesn't have to change its algorithms and isn't liable for the video titles and be done with it.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[JGalt]

Exactly correct .. who would define the ambiguous terminology? For example, would it be Democrats, like Sheila Jackson, who wants to penalize white people for hate crimes if they talk negative about blacks and illegal aliens on social media? Why would the government regulate misinformation? A majority of the electorate is already misinformed as low-information voters who rely on celebrities, biased media outlets and social media for their news brief.

The SC is taking up the case because of a lawsuit claiming that Google (I believe) was allowing terrorist organizations like ISIS a platform. The problem is, we now have a President and an administration who is not as much concerned about radical Islamic factions, as they are in denigrating white Christian conservatives as being the biggest threat to America.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I would prefer that this is addressed by Congress not SCOTUS, but am wondering how this will impact websites, particularly nonSocial Media sites (like USMB).

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

A Supreme Court hearing next week could shine a light on how Congress could clamp down on tech, and the future of free speech online.

www.yahoo.com

In the UK, web site owners are liable for the content. So if challenged by a letter off someone's solicitor, it's either remove the content or we'll see you in court.

Just stops trash talk when people make a defamatory comment with no evidence to back their claim. Simply put, no offence, many Americans will struggle with this because of their free speech delusion means they would have to start thinking before posting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...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....
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 fault if someone writes a slanderous criticism.

But...
S&W legally manufactures a gun.
It legally sells that gun to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells it to a gun store
The gun store legally sells it to a consumer.
The gun is stolen from the consumer, and is used to shoot up a school.
S&W, we are told, should be held legally liable for that shooting.

Why is it FB, et al, should have immunity here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the UK, web site owners are liable for the content. So if challenged by a letter off someone's solicitor, it's either remove the content or we'll see you in court.

Just stops trash talk when people make a defamatory comment with no evidence to back their claim. Simply put, no offence, many Americans will struggle with this because of their free speech delusion means they would have to start thinking before posting.

Wrong.

This isn't a free speech lssue.

The case concerns private civil suits, not the First Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I would prefer that this is addressed by Congress not SCOTUS, but am wondering how this will impact websites, particularly nonSocial Media sites (like USMB).

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

A Supreme Court hearing next week could shine a light on how Congress could clamp down on tech, and the future of free speech online.

www.yahoo.com

Any protections big tech loses, this site also loses.

Sites like this will cease to exist.