The heated debate on the responsibility of social networks for the content posted by their usersas well as for the controversial recommendation algorithms that they use, will continue to burn but for the moment unresolved and without far-reaching legal changes, at least in USA. With the decisions adopted this Thursday in two cases of terrorismhe supreme court American has given a vVictory to Big Tech. In addition, it has For now, the shielding of the platforms and networks has been maintained that since the birth of the commercial internet has given them immunity from third-party content.
The two specific cases that the Supreme Court has resolved had been presented by the ffamilies of victims of terrorist attacks by the Islamic State in Türkiye and France. In the case of Twitterthis network was accused, as well as Goal and Youtubehaving allowed the organization to use them for recruit members, raise funds and advertise. The same was true of the case against Googlewhich accused YouTube of being complicit in the attacks by using its recommendation mechanisms to promote videos of terrorists.
The Supreme Court has dismissed both claims and has sent the cases back to lower courts. But he has also avoided entering the Section 230, the part of the LCommunications Decency Act of 1996 which is considered vital in the birth of the internet and which has so far exempted technology companies from liability for the content posted by their users.
Political and legal debate
Section 230 has long been the subject of a polarized and politicized debate in the United States about freedom of expression. It is also in the center of the storm for technology practiceswho are in the eye of the hurricane due to the spread of disinformationon the recommendation of hateful or harmful content or by creating and using features on its platforms that make them addictive.
Although tech critics believe it is past time to change that immunity, both the tech industry and digital rights organizations They warn that changes that impose liability could alter the basic functioning of the Internet and even create risks for individual users.
Related news
In a note within the unanimous ruling in the case against Twitter this Thursday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson recalled that “other cases presenting different allegations and different histories may lead to different conclusions”. But for now the Supreme Court maintains the shield, which for now leaves Congress the option, remote given the division, to make changes.
“At some point the Supreme Court will have to take another case. It’s a subject too big to avoid forever, but section 230 has at least a few more years left& rdquor ;, Alan Rozenshtein, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, told ‘The Wall Street Journal.