4 ms·
Tech isn't particularly complicated from a legal perspective especially in this case. Regardless of whatever algorithms or infrastructure being used to power it
by boh 4y ago
Tech isn't particularly complicated from a legal perspective especially in this case. Regardless of whatever algorithms or infrastructure being used to power it, Twitter and Google function mostly as media companies. Section 230 was put together in a completely different political and economic environment than what we have today--granting tech firms powers they would've unlikely been able to secure at any other time. If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand".
- thwayunion 4y agoI largely agree; the questions here are primarily legal, not technical, and a lot will boil down to legislative intent. As a technical person, I am actually sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that Section 230 may not necessarily protect recommendation systems designed for engagement maximization, and particularly not in the case of push notifications or the like. > If they lose the case it won't be because the Supreme Court doesn't "understand". The honest truth is that if they lose this case it will be because Big Tech pissed off conservatives. The court is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. If the courts don't pull out of the legitimacy tail-spin and return to a situation where at least issues of commerce are less politicized, the US may start facing some problems reminiscent of emerging markets with weaker rule of law/capital protections.
- boh 4y agoThe "legitimacy" of the Supreme Court has always been in question, especially if they draw conclusions that people don't agree with. Law is subjective despite whatever fabulistic narratives that may suggest otherwise. That's why there's nine justices and not just one that makes "the" objective conclusion. There will be no crisis if the courts decide against whatever conclusions you feel are more legitimate.
- thwayunion 4y agoThe unique/new concern is less about legitimacy in the political/culture war sense and more about investment risk. Companies like Disney and FAANGs getting caught in the middle of political battles is different in kind and, if it accelerates, will make the US a much riskier place to deploy capital.
- boh 4y agoCompared to where?
- everforward 4y agoI think there's two disjoint issues here that are meant to be handled by separate entities, but people want them to be handled by one entity. The first is whether section 230 is being correctly interpreted. This is undeniably the domain of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, section 230 is being correctly interpreted; moderation does not somehow remove the immunity. This bit seems pretty salient on that point: > 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. The second issue is whether section 230, as it exists, is still a good idea. That question _should_ be for Congress to decide, not the Supreme Court. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that at some point, moderation can start to look a lot like publishing and perhaps should be treated similarly. The current law seems pretty clear that that's not the case, and a ruling that changes that starts to look an awful lot like writing laws by strange interpretation. It's all kind of paired with the inability of Congress to get anything meaningful. People have gotten used to Congress being ineffective, and are now looking at the SC to effect change. It's a dangerous line to tread, though, since federal judges are appointed rather than elected and don't have a direct feedback mechanism for people to express discontent.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y agoOne could also argue that if they win it will be because a majority of the Court doesn't "understand".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y agoSchnapper was tasked with helping them "understand" and he has failed.