We’ve all spent countless hours with online recommendation algorithms suggesting that it might be fun to watch one more cat video or follow one more influencer. . But in just a few months, social media platforms may need to find new ways to keep users engaged.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Gonzalez V. Google, This calls into question whether the tech giant can be held legally liable for content promoted by algorithms. Covers laws protecting online platforms from liability for content created by others. If the Supreme Court undermines the law, platforms may need to revise or remove their preferred algorithms governing their feeds. And if the courts completely reverse the law, tech companies would be more vulnerable to lawsuits based on user content.
“I think it’s fair to say that without protections for user-generated content, this is probably the end of social media,” said Hany Farid, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. . Social platforms such as Twitter and YouTube rely heavily on two things: user-generated content and recommendation algorithms that promote content that is most likely to get the attention of other users and stay on the platform for as long as possible. I’m here. The Supreme Court’s ruling could make either or both strategies more dangerous for tech companies.
Gonzales V. Google In November 2015, armed groups affiliated with the terrorist organization ISIS launched six simultaneous attacks in Paris, killing 130 people. Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student, was the only American killed in the attack. Her family then sued her Google, which owns YouTube, claiming that the video her platform’s recommendation algorithm promoted content for terrorist groups.
Google says sorting content using algorithms is “typically public” and necessary to enable users to navigate the Internet, and is therefore protected under Section 230. claims. Under the law, computer service providers cannot be treated as publishers of information created by others. It’s been a move since the dawn of the internet to keep tech companies from interfering too much with what’s going on online.
“The law is designed to maximize speech, meaning that it will allow companies to create platforms where people can speak without active scrutiny by exempting companies from liability significantly. ,” says Gautam Hans, Associate Clinical. Professor of Law at Cornell Law School.
Gonzalez Recommendation algorithms claim to actively promote content rather than simply deciding what content to display, as “neutral tools” like search engines do. However, some experts disagree. Brandie Nonnecke, her policy specialist and director of technology at her CITRIS Policy Lab, headquartered at the University of California, Berkeley, said: She contributed a brief on cases where she argued that both types of algorithms use existing information to determine the content to display. “Distinguishing between content display and content recommendation is not an easy task,” she says.
in deciding Gonzales V. Google, the Supreme Court can follow one of three paths. If the court had favored Google and declared Section 230 to remain in force, all would remain the same. In the extreme, a court could quash Section 230 altogether, exposing the tech giant to lawsuits not just for algorithm-recommended content, but for whatever users say on their sites.
Alternatively, courts can take an intermediate route, adapting the law in specific ways that may require technology companies to face additional liability in certain circumstances. This scenario might be a bit like his controversial 2018 Section 230 amendment. The amendment made the platform responsible for third-party content related to sex trafficking.Given the constraints of Gonzalez V. GoogleAmendments to Section 230 could include changes such as excluding content related to terrorism. Or they should demand that companies push ever-more extreme content and limit algorithms that put the interests of advertising ahead of the interests of users and society, Farid said.
Hans doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to make its decision until late June. But he warns that if Section 230 is repealed, big changes will happen to the internet very quickly, and the ripples will spread far beyond his YouTube and Google. Technology platforms, already dominated by a handful of powerful companies, are likely to consolidate further. Also, the companies that remain may crack down on what users can post, which can affect an individual’s freedom of speech. “I think this is the downstream impact that we should all be concerned about,” he says Hans.
Even with the Supreme Court on Google’s side, experts say there is growing momentum for governments to try to curb Big Tech by amending Section 230 or introducing other measures. Hans said he hopes Congress will take the lead, but points out lawmakers have yet to succeed in passing new legislation for this purpose. Nonnecke suggested that another approach could focus on giving users more control over her recommendation algorithm and how to opt out of sharing personal information with the algorithm. doing.
The Supreme Court, however, does not appear to be turning a blind eye to the issue.Second case being discussed this weekcalled goodbye on twitter, It also explores the liability of technology platforms for anti-terrorism content. As early as this fall, experts expect the Supreme Court to take up a case investigating two conflicting state laws regarding the moderation of content by social media platforms.
“No matter what happens in this case, the regulation of technology companies will continue to be an issue for courts,” says Hans. “We will be dealing with the Supreme Court and technical regulations for some time.”
