recording1677062833893 (4)

The US Supreme Court is currently discussing the case of Gonzales v. Google, which focuses on the lack of online protections for social media giants like Google, Twitter, and YouTube. The case involves the family of Noam Gonzales, who was killed in a 2015 ISIS attack. The family alleges that YouTube's content recommendations helped radicalize viewers and promote ISIS's worldview. The case seeks to limit the protections under Section 230, potentially exposing tech platforms to more liability. The Supreme Court is hesitant to alter the law that protects social media platforms from lawsuits. However, there is a need to reform and protect users from hate speech and misinformation without hindering internet use. The US's decisions on this issue have global implications, as major tech companies are based in the US. Other regions, such as the European Union and China, also have their own internet regulations. Good afternoon and welcome to another episode of the Diary of a Lawyer. And in this case, we are going to look at the current U.S. Supreme Court discussions on arguments or arguments regarding the case of Gonzales v. Google, which in a nutshell are related to the online protections or the lack thereof in relation to social media giants like Google, Twitter, YouTube, among others. Just briefly, the case regarding the case of Gonzales v. Google, which is a legal battle with the potential to reshape how online platforms deal with speech and content content creation. There are obviously ideological lines from the justices, but according to the case, the family of Noam Gonzales was killed sadly in 2015 by ISIS attack. YouTube, apparently, according to the plaintiffs, YouTube targeted recommendations related to the U.S. anti-terrorism law by helping to radicalize viewers and promote ISIS's world view. And the allegation seeks to carve out content recommendations so that they do not necessarily receive protections under Section 20, which will come into potentially exposing tech platforms to more liability in relation to how they run their services. Just a brief mention of Section 230. This was passed in 1996 during the early days of the World Wide Web. Section 230 of the Communication Efficiency Act was meant to nurture startups and entrepreneurs. And the legislation recognized the internet was an internet frenzy, and they didn't want it to be sort of chopped out of existence. If website owners could be sued for things that other people posted. Now, there have been various reports and texts on the issue, and if you look at the New York Times, again, it says that this is a case which has the potential to alter the very structure of the internet, and observes that the Supreme Court did not feel ready to limit the law that protects social media platforms from lawsuits over their users' courses. And it mentions this sprawling argument that lasted three hours, and it caught some of the comments by justices such as Justice Eleanor Kagan, who said, reported to have said, you know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. Whilst other justices had practical concerns, the report that Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed sentiments where he was worried that the decision would really crush the digital economy with all sorts of effects on workers and consumers' retirement plans and other issues. And required the responsibility to Congress, because they were not equipped to counter that. The case comes as developments in cart image, artificial intelligence products, raise profound new questions about whether the old laws such as Section 2300, which was enacted in 1996, can keep up with rapidly changing technology. And according to Justice Kagan, she says that this was a pre-algorithm statute, and a post-algorithm statute, where those hand-guidance, in a post-algorithm world. And Justice Neil Gorsuch marveled at, according to the New York Times, advances in artificial intelligence with generous poetry and polemics. So we're focusing on the recommendation function, according to the court. And there were other observations where, to the surprise of Justice Kagan, that she can imagine a world in response to one of the litigants, where none of the staff gets protection. And every other industry also has to internalize the cost of its conduct. And why is it that it takes place? It gets passed. And that remained unclear. And Justice Emmey called him and asked about whether Twitter users could be sued for retweeting ISIS with you. Because that's the content which, according to the Justice, they had created. On the other hand, Justice Samuel said, he was lost. I don't know why you're drawing this line. And that's the problem. So there are various arguments about this issue. But overall, there appears to be a reluctance to completely overhaul the law. And if you look at, for example, even the Financial Times observes that the court is reluctant to do that. But I think there's overwhelming evidence that the protections that were there before, the current developments, the current improvements in the technology world, where almost every feature about digital life is controlled and managed by technology, from ordering food, to travel, to banking, to shopping, also elections, and we know the 2020 election, the US election, where companies like Facebook and Twitter had a huge impact on shaping the views of voters, some of which were unfounded, some of which were full of hate and misinformation. And we saw the culmination of that on the attack on the US Congress on the so-called January 6th. So certainly, and now we have the new bots, the AI chat bots, which can literally generate information to almost a human level. And so I think there's a need to reform, overhaul, protect users, children, control hate speech, without necessarily hindering the day-to-day traffic and use of the Internet, which has become a crucial day-to-day means in how we function as a society. So we will keep a close eye on the issue, watch developments, and certainly, as they say, to paraphrase, given that all the major high-tech inventions, companies, Google, Twitter, YouTube are based in the US, so what happens in the US affects the rest of the world, especially on this issue. So in this case, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world will catch a cold because of the overreaching impact and day-to-day use that social media and the Internet has on our lives. So this is something that we watch with very, very close interest, but that does not necessarily mean that other areas, such as the European Union or Asia, can bring in their own protections. In fact, as you know, in China, there's a lot of censorship of the Internet. So whilst what happens in the US is crucial, other areas also have a certain level of control and jurisdiction over the use of the Internet and control in their own areas. So there we shall leave it today, on the 22nd of February, 2023, and focusing on the US Supreme Court's online protection hearings in the case of Gonzalez versus Google. Thank you, and have a good day. We'll speak again. Thank you. End of recording.