Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

Beijing time on February 22 morning news, According to reports, Local time on Tuesday, The United States Supreme Court judges expressed hesitation on whether to overturn asylum technology companies "Article 230."

Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Regulation Act states that Internet platforms are granted legal immunity for almost all third-party content on their websites. This frees U.S. tech companies from liability for content posted by users. In addition, the clause specifies how companies review content on the platform.

In deciding Gonzales v. Google, the focus case, dissenting judges expressed concern about upsetting the delicate balance set by Section 230. However, some judges considered that narrowing the legal interpretation of the provision might make sense in certain circumstances.

The case was brought by the family of an American killed in the 2015 Paris terror attacks. The plaintiffs claim Google violated counterterrorism laws by aiding and abetting ISIS through its YouTube subsidiary and recommending videos from ISIS through its recommendation algorithm. However, the lower court sided with Google in this case, holding that under Section 230, Google is not liable for content posted by third parties on the platform.

The plaintiffs argued that YouTube's algorithmic recommendations actually constituted the company's own statements, beyond the limits of immunity. The judges, however, had a hard time understanding how plaintiffs lawyer Eric Schnapper drew the line and determined what content was created by YouTube.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said Schnapper was "thoroughly confused" by trying to show the difference between YouTube's own comments and those of third parties.

Schnapper repeatedly demos video thumbnails on YouTube that show what videos will play next and are recommended based on user viewing records. He said the thumbnails were co-authored by YouTube and the third party that posted the video, ISIS in this case, because YouTube contributed links to the thumbnails.

However, several judges questioned whether this view applied to any activity that organizes information on the Internet, such as the display of results pages for search engines. They worry that too broad an interpretation of the law could have far-reaching consequences that courts cannot predict.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that the courts have been applying Section 230 since it came into effect in the 1990s, and that a radical revision of the legal interpretation of the Section would have huge economic consequences, affecting many businesses and their employees, consumers and investors. He argued that if Congress felt it should change the status quo, then that was an "important concern" Congress could consider, but that the Supreme Court "was not competent to do it."

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote publicly that the Court should hear cases under Section 230, was skeptical of the plaintiffs 'position. YouTube uses the same algorithm to recommend videos of interest to users, whether food videos or videos from ISIS, he said. These are suggestions, not definitive recommendations, he says. "I cannot understand why offering neutral advice on something you have expressed an interest in is aiding and abetting. "

At the same time, the judges asked Google tough questions about whether the exemption was indeed as broad as the tech industry expected. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, had a lengthy dispute with Lisa Blatt, Google's attorney. The court presented a hypothetical situation in which YouTube recommended ISIS videos in a section of its home page and tagged them as "featured videos." The court wished to know whether YouTube would be protected under Section 230 in such circumstances.

Blatter said that home page publishing is one of the basic work of website operation and should be protected by "Article 230," and this kind of information organization work is also one of the core functions of the platform. Therefore, if the title cannot be covered by "Article 230," then this clause is basically "a piece of waste paper."

Liberal judge Elena Kagan, however, argued that Google should not agree entirely with its view of the applicability of the provision, fearing potential consequences. However, she also said that how to adjust this interpretation of the law may be more suitable for Congress than the Supreme Court.

Several experts supporting Google in the case said they were more optimistic after the Supreme Court discussion. Cathy Gellis, an independent lawyer in the San Francisco Bay Area, previously filed a legal statement on behalf of a Google-funded startup equity group and a digital think tank. She states that the legal submissions she and her peers submitted appear to have had a significant impact on the Supreme Court's views.

"It's clear that the justices are taking a lot of lessons," she said. Overall, they don't seem to have much interest in disrupting the Internet, especially in a case where the plaintiffs appear relatively weak. "

But Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law school professor, said that while he was optimistic about the outcome of the case, he remained concerned about the future of Section 230. "I remain concerned that some perceptions will put us all in an unexpected situation. "

On Wednesday, local time, the justices will hear a similar case with slightly different legal issues. In Twitter v. Taamneh, the judges will also consider whether Twitter should be held liable under anti-terrorism laws for aiding and abetting. The focus of this case is whether Twitter's decision to regularly remove terrorism-related content means Twitter knows that such information exists on the platform and should take more aggressive action against it.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.