3 ms·

Supreme Court will hear Section 230 challenges in February

• vlovich123 4y ago
  > Supreme Court seems likely to take up arguments over a pair of laws that could ban most content moderation in Texas and Florida > Both stem from lawsuits claiming that YouTube, Twitter, and other platforms provided support for Islamic State attacks by failing to remove — and, in some cases, recommending — accounts and posts by terrorists. Gonzalez v. Google’s plaintiffs claim these recommendations shouldn’t be covered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields web services from liability for illegal content. Twitter v. Taamneh covers a distinct but related question: whether these services are providing unlawful material support if they fail to kick terrorists out. These two things seem mutually incompatible. Either you’re doing moderation (automated or otherwise) to keep illegal content of your platform or you’re not doing anything. Is there a middle ground I’m missing? For some reason I’m expecting some interesting mental gymnastics from the Court to thread a needle of how they want things to work. This Court feels very activist and seems to come with post-hog rationalizations for their decisions vs being principled and consistent.