Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

616

Supreme Court to scrutinize U.S. protections for social media | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/legal/supreme-court-scrutinize-us-protections-social-media-2022-10-03/ October 3, 2022 By Andrew Chung The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to federal protections for internet and social media companies freeing them of responsibility for content posted by users in a case involving an American student fatally shot in a 2015 rampage by Islamist militants in Paris.
The justices took up an appeal by the parents and other relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old woman from California who was studying in Paris, of a lower court's ruling that cleared Google LLC-owned YouTube of wrongdoing in a lawsuit seeking monetary damages that the family brought under a U.S. anti-terrorism law. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O).
The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a separate appeal by Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) of the lower court's decision to revive a similar lawsuit against that company, though not on the basis of Section 230 ....

The Supreme Court and the internet's future, explained https://web.archive.org/web/20221005124314mp_/https://theweek.com/supreme-court/1017215/the-supreme-court-and-the-internets-future-explained https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-internets-future-explained-094609268.html Joel Mathis, October 5, 2022, The Supreme Court is about to decide the future of the internet.
The court this week agreed to hear a case involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet providers from lawsuits over material posted online by users. The law "helped enable the rise of huge social networks like Facebook and Twitter," ... "If the Supreme Court erodes Section 230 immunity, it could create a nightmare scenario not just for Big Tech but for anyone [who] runs a website with user-generated content," Axios notes. Legally speaking, then, the whole internet might be up for grabs.

Supreme Court to scrutinize U.S. protections for social media | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/legal/supreme-court-scrutinize-us-protections-social-media-2022-10-03/ October 3, 2022 By Andrew Chung The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to federal protections for internet and social media companies freeing them of responsibility for content posted by users in a case involving an American student fatally shot in a 2015 rampage by Islamist militants in Paris. The justices took up an appeal by the parents and other relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old woman from California who was studying in Paris, of a lower court's ruling that cleared Google LLC-owned YouTube of wrongdoing in a lawsuit seeking monetary damages that the family brought under a U.S. anti-terrorism law. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O). The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a separate appeal by Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) of the lower court's decision to revive a similar lawsuit against that company, though not on the basis of Section 230 .... The Supreme Court and the internet's future, explained https://web.archive.org/web/20221005124314mp_/https://theweek.com/supreme-court/1017215/the-supreme-court-and-the-internets-future-explained https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-internets-future-explained-094609268.html Joel Mathis, October 5, 2022, The Supreme Court is about to decide the future of the internet. The court this week agreed to hear a case involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet providers from lawsuits over material posted online by users. The law "helped enable the rise of huge social networks like Facebook and Twitter," ... "If the Supreme Court erodes Section 230 immunity, it could create a nightmare scenario not just for Big Tech but for anyone [who] runs a website with user-generated content," Axios notes. Legally speaking, then, the whole internet might be up for grabs.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Democrats have faulted it for giving social media companies a pass for spreading hate speech and misinformation. Republicans painted it as a tool for censorship

Jesus Christ, these filthy jew rats make me sick. Notice how they represent the Democrat opinion as fact they "fault" Section 230 for giving a pass to social media companies, as of it's just a plain fact. But when describing conservative positions it becomes "painted it as a tool" as if it's a mischaracterization.

[–] • 1 pt

Well this isn't good. As much as that helps large tech companies, and people hate large tech companies, it helps smaller tech companies even more.

Without definitive immunity, they will still have to establish Mens Rea (guilty mind) so there will always be some level of "good faith" that will give immunity to anything at the foundational level of law. But that standard of effort will be set by the large tech companies and will include advanced AI that most small companies won't have access to. Maybe you will be able to rent access from the large companies in exchange for.. a fee, all user data, installment of tracking cookies, and demands on your content policy.

Any policy shouldn't be about hurting big tech companies. It should be about helping small ones. Instead of asking what big tech companies will hate a better thing to ask is what will small tech companies love.

So here's the list:
Maintain immunity. A site is a protocol, just a software, and users are responsible for their use of it.
Kill copyright. It never did society that much good anyway.
Release patents in a reasonable amount of time (seven years as was initially intended), so we get better server technology and AI.

[–] • 0 pt

Personally, I hope they negate section 230. it has been abused over and over. facebook and twitter would have went the way of MySpace if not for section 230.