Supreme Court to scrutinize U.S. protections for social media

reuters.com

6 pointsLinuxBender3 comments

I genuinely don't understand the endgame here. If I'm understanding it right, this case would essentially hold social media companies liable for messages of terrorism spread on their network. So... more censorship is the answer?

This will most certainly bring about future lawsuits from those who believe social media is too censored. With today's politics in the US I just do not understand where this ends. Maybe there can me meaningful change to Section 230, but I don't imagine anything making it through congress with bipartisan support.

In theory, this is about recommendations, not just messages. They claim Google did more than just carry the messages, but promotes them.

I imagine what the court "wants" is for the tech companies to stop making any judgment calls about messages -- which will probably kill the whole business model that relies on trying to engage you. (Among other things, "this is spam" is a judgment call, and we all know what happens without spam filters.)

It seems like even if they rule that 230 doesn’t protect this recommended content then it would still be protected by the first amendment (youtube videos unlikely to be “imminent” enough to qualify as incitement).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com