Is YouTube liable for radicalisation? Tech companies fear verdict as US court considers ‘jihad charge’ | Abroad

The case was filed on Tuesday and was brought by the relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez (23), an American victim of the Paris attacks in 2015. YouTube, which presents videos based on users’ viewing habits, is said to have helped IS by providing radical videos to potential jihadists, they believe. This allowed the attackers to become increasingly radicalized. That would be a violation of US anti-terrorism law.

But this also means that ‘Section 230’, a piece of law from 1996 that protects internet companies against lawsuits about messages from their users, is also under discussion. Google and other websites believe that a victory for the plaintiffs in the current case could not only lead to a flood of lawsuits against platforms, but also disrupt the functioning of the internet. The case is even a threat to freedom of expression, they believe.

The judges were concerned about the possible consequences of an immunity limitation for internet companies. However, they admitted that they are not experts on Internet protocols. Judge Brett Kavanaugh therefore thinks that there is a task for the US Congress, where politicians can better determine where the responsibility of tech companies and platforms begins and ends.

The judges acknowledged that changing or restricting the rules surrounding YouTube’s software could also affect platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, justifying the tech companies’ fears.

Judge Elena Kagan pointed out that the current 1996 piece of law was drafted before algorithms began to largely determine what users see online. In the current internet climate, the law may therefore fall short. Judge Clarence Thomas noted that YouTube’s suggestions should be taken as such, and not recommendations, as Nohemi Gonzalez’s next of kin claim.

The Supreme Court ruling is expected at the end of June.