Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Commercial-Honey-227 t1_j9evexi wrote

You can ignore it - it's clickbait. First, there is a sister case, Twitter v. Taamneh, which is going to hold that there is no right of action for generalized posting policies (like all social media) for discrete acts that follow third-party posts. Twitter, in this instances, would have to have been in cahoots with the terrorists to be held liable. Having ruled on that, which is going to be a 9-0 decision, the Court will not have to answer whether Section 230 of the Decency Act allows a cause of action for the algorithms used by social media sites when those algorithms potentially lead to harm.

A case will come, with better facts, where the court will have to decide the breadth of 230, but these cases aren't it.

44

Pepepopowa t1_j9fdpx8 wrote

Thanks for the extra info. Blind posts like this are what spread misinformation, fear and anxiety.

10

Sisboombah74 t1_j9i3fai wrote

You should have known it was misinformation when you saw it came from CNN.

3

Commercial-Honey-227 t1_j9fkoel wrote

I'm listening to arguments and counsel for Gonzalez is getting bludgeoned.

The internet will be just fine.

0

Commercial-Honey-227 t1_j9ga4i4 wrote

Arguments are done. Minor correction to my original post, Taamneh only regards terrorism, as does Gonzalez, so if Taamneh goes, Gonzalez goes without even considering Section 230.

Near the end of the two-hour argument, the Court did dig deeper into liability for acts committed by those who, it would be argued, were influenced by what they saw on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. The gist of the argument is -if the algorithm used to populate objectionable content (terrorism, pro-anorexia, sex trafficking), if that algorithm was content-neutral, the internet sites could not be held liable. There would have to be something more than just publishing or recommending a site with objectionable views through a content-neutral algorithm. There were hypotheticals on the edges (if the site was reported and YouTube kept recommending vids to people it knew had terroristic attitudes), but by and large, today was a huge win for the larger tech companies in the US. The EU already has laws in place that force sites to filter content, but that won't be coming to the U.S. anytime soon. Unless Congress acts, the odds of that happening are slim.

5

billbradley8744 t1_j9h6lzm wrote

2020 misinformation spread through Twitter was terrorism

−5

Commercial-Honey-227 t1_j9h7dcm wrote

Well, under the Terrorism act, Twitter would have had to be in cahoots with the terrorists with the goal of committing terror in order for liability for that terror to be applied to Twitter. That is the case being heard tomorrow, Twitter v. Taamneh. Oral arguments begin at 10 am -just go to the Supreme Court site and you can listen in along with me and other Court geeks.

2

billbradley8744 t1_j9h7gun wrote

They were.

−2

Commercial-Honey-227 t1_j9hqt55 wrote

Sorry, I should have been much more specific. My bad. According to the Terrorism Act, Twitter would have had to be in cahoots with the terrorists to kill Taamneh, not just generally in cahoots.

2