Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech
Sestak:
Quote from: These knuckles break before they bleed on February 21, 2023, 01:51:47 PM
Quote from: Sestak on February 21, 2023, 12:33:13 PM
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:
Quote from: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/not-like-the-nine-greatest-experts-on-the-internet-justices-seem-leery-of-broad-ruling-on-section-230/
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:
Quote from: brucejoel99 on February 22, 2023, 09:56:35 AM
Quote from: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/not-like-the-nine-greatest-experts-on-the-internet-justices-seem-leery-of-broad-ruling-on-section-230/
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:
Quote from: These knuckles break before they bleed on February 22, 2023, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: brucejoel99 on February 22, 2023, 09:56:35 AM
Quote from: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/not-like-the-nine-greatest-experts-on-the-internet-justices-seem-leery-of-broad-ruling-on-section-230/
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.:
Quote from: These knuckles break before they bleed on February 22, 2023, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: brucejoel99 on February 22, 2023, 09:56:35 AM
Quote from: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/not-like-the-nine-greatest-experts-on-the-internet-justices-seem-leery-of-broad-ruling-on-section-230/
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".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page