Section 230 is famous for shielding platforms for liability from content that other people can't afford. The cases are about what if YouTube starts amplifying that, recommending it through things like the up next algorithm, does it then lose its Section 230 immunity? Evelyn: I think it's something more than that, that they're really sort of pushing it out, you recommend it to you saying, hey, here's a terrorist that you may know and want to talk to that kind of thing.
As Justice Kagan has asked, “Every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass?” Yet she and the other 8 Supreme Court Justices seemed wary this week as they heard oral arguments in two cases that could upend the Section 230 immunity that social media companies enjoy, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. Today, we hear from three experts: Stanford Law professor Evelyn Douek, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen and UC Berkeley computer science professor Hany Farid. Up for discussion — what’s at stake in these two cases, which way the wind seems to be blowing and, of course, will killing Section 230 kill the internet?
Questions? Comments? Email us on@voxmedia.com or find us on Twitter @karaswisher and @nayeema
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices