Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech

[THKL]

How badly would this website be affected by Section 230 repeal,  ?

[Ferguson97]

SCOTUS is about to destroy the Internet lmao. Might be for the best.

[THKL]

SCOTUS is about to destroy the Internet lmao. Might be for the best.

Do you think the Atlas forum could survive the end of Section 230?

[Sestak]

The attorney arguing for stripping Section 230 protections seems to be somewhat melting down. Facing somewhat stiff resistance from the Court. We’ll see how Google’s attorney does

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For anyone who thinks the plaintiffs here have any legal merit at all and are arguing anything more than a blatantly political hack decision, please read the section on URLs in pages 35 through 39 of the petitioner's brief. It is arguably the worst claptrap I have ever read in my life.

Link?

[Sestak]

For anyone who thinks the plaintiffs here have any legal merit at all and are arguing anything more than a blatantly political hack decision, please read the section on URLs in pages 35 through 39 of the petitioner's brief. It is arguably the worst claptrap I have ever read in my life.

Link?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

above link is for the livesteam audio. The archive audio should go up sometime tonight?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For anyone who thinks the plaintiffs here have any legal merit at all and are arguing anything more than a blatantly political hack decision, please read the section on URLs in pages 35 through 39 of the petitioner's brief. It is arguably the worst claptrap I have ever read in my life.

Link?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

above link is for the livesteam audio. The archive audio should go up sometime tonight?

That doesn't have the pages or section referred to.

[Sestak]

For anyone who thinks the plaintiffs here have any legal merit at all and are arguing anything more than a blatantly political hack decision, please read the section on URLs in pages 35 through 39 of the petitioner's brief. It is arguably the worst claptrap I have ever read in my life.

Link?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

above link is for the livesteam audio. The archive audio should go up sometime tonight?

That doesn't have the pages or section referred to.

My bad, thought you were replying to my other post.


Here you go: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf

[Sestak]

The only justice who seems to be taking the anti-230/DeSantis type line is Jackson. Maybe Barrett a little bit. Google should win this case handily.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only justice who seems to be taking the anti-230/DeSantis type line is Jackson. Maybe Barrett a little bit. Google should win this case handily.

Weird coalition.

But didn't Roberts all but flat out tell the plaintiff lawyer that he was wrong and ridiculous?

[Sestak]

The only justice who seems to be taking the anti-230/DeSantis type line is Jackson. Maybe Barrett a little bit. Google should win this case handily.

Weird coalition.

But didn't Roberts all but flat out tell the plaintiff lawyer that he was wrong and ridiculous?

Most of the justices did, in some way or another. The plaintiff's lawyer was a complete trainwreck and the Court largely wasn't having it.

[brucejoel99]

Justice Clarence Thomas has written skeptically in recent years about broad immunity under Section 230, but he appeared surprisingly sympathetic to the theory on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied in ruling for Google below – the idea that Section 230 protects recommendations as long as the provider's algorithm treats content on its website similarly. If the same algorithm that recommends ISIS videos based on a user's history and interests also recommends cooking videos to someone who is interested in cooking, Thomas asked, how can Google be held responsible for those recommendations?

I mean, the §230 status quo's survival just can't be more assured than that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Justice Clarence Thomas has written skeptically in recent years about broad immunity under Section 230, but he appeared surprisingly sympathetic to the theory on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied in ruling for Google below – the idea that Section 230 protects recommendations as long as the provider's algorithm treats content on its website similarly. If the same algorithm that recommends ISIS videos based on a user's history and interests also recommends cooking videos to someone who is interested in cooking, Thomas asked, how can Google be held responsible for those recommendations?

I mean, the §230 status quo's survival just can't be more assured than that.

Also it sounds strange to be saying this but Thomas's logic makes perfect sense.

[Sestak]

Justice Clarence Thomas has written skeptically in recent years about broad immunity under Section 230, but he appeared surprisingly sympathetic to the theory on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied in ruling for Google below – the idea that Section 230 protects recommendations as long as the provider's algorithm treats content on its website similarly. If the same algorithm that recommends ISIS videos based on a user's history and interests also recommends cooking videos to someone who is interested in cooking, Thomas asked, how can Google be held responsible for those recommendations?

I mean, the §230 status quo's survival just can't be more assured than that.

Also it sounds strange to be saying this but Thomas's logic makes perfect sense.

Eh…the focus on ‘neutrality’ here is kind of a suspect one. With modern algorithms it is almost impossible to draw a clear distinction between what algorithms are actually “neutral” and which ones are “biased”, especially as machine learning models - trained on a data subsample - have become central to these algorithms. (J. Gorsuch made this note later in the argument). Would be much safer if the court were to rule that all decision making in organization of content was covered by 230.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Justice Clarence Thomas has written skeptically in recent years about broad immunity under Section 230, but he appeared surprisingly sympathetic to the theory on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied in ruling for Google below – the idea that Section 230 protects recommendations as long as the provider's algorithm treats content on its website similarly. If the same algorithm that recommends ISIS videos based on a user's history and interests also recommends cooking videos to someone who is interested in cooking, Thomas asked, how can Google be held responsible for those recommendations?

I mean, the §230 status quo's survival just can't be more assured than that.

Also it sounds strange to be saying this but Thomas's logic makes perfect sense.

I don't think it's that strange. Thomas is an extreme-right hack but he's not Alito; he has an apparently genuinely held philosophy and worldview that happens to align with American rightist priorities >95% of the time, not a philosophy of "the Two Whatevers but for the RNC instead of Chairman Mao".