The three cases that could destroy the internet
Often referred to as “the 26 words that created the Internet,” the section states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider .”
It effectively absolves digital platforms from liability for the content posted by their users as long as they are not aware of a crime. Any regulation of the content and the user is left to the platforms.
The American Nohemi Gonzalez was a victim of the 2015 terrorist attacks by the IS in Paris. Her family has argued that Google’s YouTube recommendation algorithms helped ISIS recruit members.Credit:Facebook
The Texas and Florida cases have been backed by Republicans who believe the largely Silicon Valley-based companies are censoring conservative viewpoints and describing their post-riot actions as an attack on free speech.
Ironically, Democrats would also like to rewrite Section 230, but they want more substantive moderation and want the law to enforce the removal of hate speech, extremism, and politically inspired falsehoods. They want more censorship, not less.
While the Supreme Court likely won’t be hearing the Texas and Florida cases until later this year, its decisions have the potential to reshape the internet, provided it ultimately decides to hear the two challenges to the states’ laws, and it would Do not do Only the big social media platforms are affected.
The global reach of the platforms means that decisions by the US Supreme Court could have far-reaching social, political and economic implications far beyond America’s borders.
There are a multitude of websites and digital businesses, large and small, that derive and generate their value from user content, interactions and recommendations. All of you could be affected.
Section 230 has allowed speech to be freer in the digital environment than in terrestrial activities, where all sorts of laws impose responsibility for what people say and write, and hold publishers and broadcasters liable for the content they transmit.
If digital platforms had to monitor and moderate all content on their platforms – whether or not they lose the discretionary powers they have to self-regulate – they could very well become uneconomical.
Likewise, if they were largely unable to moderate the content or decide who has access to their platforms, they could jeopardize their social licenses, with similar economic repercussions.
Loading
Section 230 is critical to the business models of the social media giants, but it is perhaps inevitable that legislation intended to shield and encourage the growth of an industry that was just nascent when the legislation was written (Facebook turned eight founded years later), would be questioned 27 years later, when a few mega-tech companies dominate global social media activity.
In fact, over the past year Europe has passed legislation – the European Union’s Digital Services Act – that regulates and imposes obligations on digital service providers who act as intermediaries in connecting consumers to each other, to content, to goods and to services online .
The legislation requires mechanisms that allow users to report illegal content and to identify and remove illegal content on platforms.
There are provisions that allow users to challenge platforms’ content moderation decisions when their content is removed, but also requirements to limit the use of their services that lead to disinformation, vote-rigging, cyber violence against women, or harm to minors could.
There are also requirements for transparency regarding the algorithms the platforms use to recommend products or content.
The outcomes of the cases could have profound implications for Silicon Valley’s tech giants.Credit:AP
In the US, for now (and with the possible exception of the “new” Twitter under Elon Musk), the more extreme user content and blatant disinformation is found on niche social networks. The major platforms have self-regulated to varying degrees.
Supreme Court cases, whatever their course—whether they uphold conservative definitions of “free” speech or support long-standing interpretations of Section 230—could have a profound impact on platforms and their economies.
Between the extremes of debates about online content — the unfiltered free-for-all favored by libertarians or the curated content desired by the social progressives — there are no easy answers.
Loading
It is obvious that any decisions that undermine platforms’ ability to tailor content to users’ interests by recommending similar content, or that prevent them from blocking or censoring harmful or misleading content – in particular misleading political content , would have consequences not only for the platforms’ finances, but for American society and politics.
The global reach of the platforms means that decisions by the US Supreme Court could have far-reaching social, political and economic implications far beyond America’s borders.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers important stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinions. Sign up to receive it every weekday morning.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/the-three-cases-that-could-break-the-internet-20230124-p5cey9.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_business The three cases that could destroy the internet
