- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court will hear social media cases that test Section 230
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:26 pm
From Bezos' rag:
quote:
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear a case that tests the limits of Section 230, the U.S. legal provision that protects social media companies from liability for what third parties post to their sites.
The high court’s decision in the case, which involves Google’s alleged responsibility for terrorist propaganda on its subsidiary YouTube, could have long-lasting ramifications for how internet sites treat users’ posts.
The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student who was killed in a 2015 ISIS terrorist attack in Paris. The suit alleges that Google’s YouTube “aided and abetted” ISIS, in part by allowing its algorithms to recommend video content from the terrorist group.
quote:
“The entire scope of Section 230 could be at stake, depending on what the Supreme Court wants to do,” said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and the author of a book on Section 230, “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the internet.”
Relatives of Gonzalez contend that YouTube used its computer algorithms to recommend ISIS videos to users who might be interested in them, using the information the company collects about users. YouTube and many other social media companies use such algorithms to keep people engaged on their sites by showing them posts, videos, photos and other content similar to material they have already viewed.
The complaint alleged that officials at parent company Google were aware its technology was aiding ISIS.
quote:
The Supreme Court’s action marked the first time the court will directly evaluate Section 230, said Eric Goldman, a professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law. It sets up the court to possibly draw a line between social media’s processes of manually recommending content versus using algorithms, which he called a “false dichotomy.”
“The question presented creates a false dichotomy that recommending content is not part of the traditional editorial functions,” he said. “The question presented goes to the very heart of Section 230 and that makes it a very risky case for the internet."
quote:
The Supreme Court also said Monday it would consider a separate but related lawsuit involving Twitter. That case was filed by relatives of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Istanbul in 2017. The claim accused Twitter, Facebook and Google of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act by allowing ISIS to use their sites.
The lower courts did not directly address the issue of Section 230 in this case, however, and Twitter asked for the Supreme Court to consider the case if it also heard the Google case.
This post was edited on 10/3/22 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:43 pm to jatilen
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:46 pm to jatilen
That is an absolutely perfect case to use to destroy Section 230.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:46 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
Why do you support ISIS?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:52 pm to imjustafatkid
because they actually encourage you to beat your wife
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:59 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:when the descriptive term "elected" gets as bastardized and cheapened as a criminality as it has
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
unelected bureaucrats in robes sounds perfectly fine
Posted on 10/3/22 at 2:59 pm to boosiebadazz
boozie poor legal education showing again :(
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:00 pm to dafif
shreveport paralegal college and law ecole?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:05 pm to dafif
Reform belongs in Congress, not SCOTUS
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:16 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
Derp.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:16 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Burn it all down!
No 230 and it will effectively burn it all down, including TD.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:17 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Reform belongs in Congress, not SCOTUS
Except when the law is something I don't like!
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Reform belongs in Congress, not SCOTUS
It's not reform. It's interpreting the law based on the Constitution.
We know the left can't stand the law nor the Constitution so it follows that they don't like the Supreme Court.
The assault on the Supreme Court by the left and media lately has been sickening and just goes to show how terrible a group of people you are.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:lawfulness belongs everywhere, not just in selected court decisions
Reform belongs in Congress, not SCOTUS
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:20 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
It's not reform. It's interpreting the law based on the Constitution.
Is this something about freedom of speech in your view?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 3:32 pm to boosiebadazz
Not if it benefits one side only, as does these named platforms. This bothers the left when called out for its very biased Democratic alliance.
Don't talk around the truth, that's called lying......
Don't talk around the truth, that's called lying......
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News