SCOTUS Case Could Have Huge Implications for Internet

"The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230," the Electronic Frontier Foundation says—and a case the Supreme Court will hear Tuesday could have huge implications for the internet's future. In Gonzalez v. Google, the court will determine whether the 1996 legislation shields Google from liability in the death of American college student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in an ISIS attack in Paris in 2015. Her family argues that YouTube, which is owned by Google, contributed to the death by promoting extremist content via algorithms that recommend content to viewers. This is the first time Section 230, which has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike, has come before the top court. More:

• What is Section 230? The legislation, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, shields tech companies from liability for content posted on their platforms. It states: "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." It was intended to protect startups in the early days of the internet, but critics argue that much has changed in the following decades, CNN reports. Republicans say it allows websites to censor right-wing content, while Democrats say it allows misinformation to spread unchecked.

• The internet's "legal foundation." MIT Technology Review describes Section 230 as the "legal foundation that, for decades, all the big internet companies with any user generated stuff—Google, Facebook, Wikimedia, AOL, even Craigslist" built their policies on. The main issue before the Supreme Court will be whether recommendations of content made by algorithms have the same protection as display of content.
• Outcome is hard to predict. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July. The court could strike down Section 230, modify it, or leave it as is. "It is hard to predict how the justices will handle Gonzalez v. Google, as the two sides in the case do not map neatly onto the Supreme Court’s ideological divide," the Economist notes. "The court could push for broad changes in the ways tech platforms build and use recommendation algorithms, but that is far from certain."
• Consequences could be "catastrophic." The Washington Post editorial board argues that removing legal immunity for content recommended by algorithms could be "catastrophic" because platforms "would likely abandon systems that suggest or prioritize information altogether, or just sanitize their services to avoid carrying anything close to objectionable—creating, as some have put it, either a wasteland or a Disneyland."
• A similar case will be heard Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal reports that oral arguments will be heard Wednesday in Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh. In that case, family members of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul, argue that companies including Twitter and Google were "the vehicle of choice in spreading propaganda." In both cases, tech companies argue that there is no direct link between their platforms and terrorist attacks.

(More internet stories.)