Dec 9, 2022
Groups file flurry of Section 230 briefs with the Supreme
Court
- What’s going on? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
shields platforms like Google and Twitter from liability for
content posted by internet users. Republicans and Democrats want
the rule changed. It’s important to note that Section 230 protects
only publishers of information. The central question here is –
at which point do platforms lose their status as publishers and
actually become creators of content? Once they’re deemed to be
creators, they would lose protection under Section 230.
- Generally, Republicans like Josh Hawley say
platform liability should be a state issue because they think tech
companies lean progressive and that seeking to ban harmful content
discriminates against conservatives.
- Democrats argue that Section 230 doesn’t hold
platforms accountable enough, especially in the context of how
marketers target children.
- How are politicians trying to change the
law? The Supreme Court is
set to decide Gonzalez
v. Google in which the
family of a young woman killed in the 2015 Paris Terror Attacks
argues that Google should be liable for aiding and abetting the
attack by hosting terror-related videos on YouTube.
- There are 2
parts to this –
- one is whether
Google should be held liable for merely hosting terror-related videos the family alleges
groomed terrorists involved. Google is arguing that hosting the
videos simply makes them publishers and thus they would still be entitled to
protection under Section 230.
- The other is
whether recommending content – converts platforms to content
creators – in which case the Gonzalez family argues Google
should be held liable since Section 230 wouldn’t apply
to instances in which people predisposed to terrorism-related
content puts Google in the position of being a content creator, in
which case Google wouldn’t be shielded from liability under Section
230.
- How does this affect you?
Keep an eye on what your state is
doing to change the way content platforms moderate content. For
example, Texas and Florida passed statutes preventing platforms
from discriminating against so-called “anti-conservative bias.”
This has a direct impact on what people see and hear, which
directly impacts elections since a scourge of harmful content, such
as Trump’s tweets leading up to the Capitol Hill insurrection, have
dominated our politics for many years.
Big name advertisers are showing up in white nationalists’
Twitter feeds again
- Why are white nationalists on
Twitter? Elon Musk fired
Twitter’s entire content moderation team and reinstated the
accounts of white nationalists.
- Which companies showed up in white
nationalist’s accounts? Ads for Uber, Amazon, Snap, and even the US
Department of Health and Human Services showed up in these
accounts. But the Washington Post reports that it saw some 40
advertisers showing up next to content posted by reinstated white
nationalists.
- What are the policy
implications? White
supremacist content is an example of the type of content
Republicans in states like Texas and Florida think internet
platforms shouldn’t be allowed to ban. Right now, only advertisers
have the ability to discipline Twitter by removing their ads on the
platform.
- What are the real-world effects of white
supremacists online? The
Department of Homeland Security issued a
report in late November
expressing urgent concern about the
fact that antisemitism online, and in the real world, are
reinforcing each other, leading to an increase in hate
crimes.
DC Attorney General is suing Amazon over driver
tips
- What’s going on? DC Attorney General Karl Racine filed a
consumer lawsuit on Wednesday alleging that Amazon basically stole
tips from its Flex drivers by hiding from drivers the amounts they
were getting in tips and pocketing them. And then Amazon hid the
fact that they were doing this from its customers.
- What is Amazon saying?
Amazon is saying it built the tips
into drivers’ hourly compensation, which it says is above DC’s
minimum wage of $16.10 per hour.
- What happens next? We’ll see. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals will
review Racine’s complaint and that process will start early next
year.
–
In other tech law & policy news
…
Women are suing Elon
Musk for discrimination
against them in layoffs.
Staten Island Union
organizer
lost his lawsuit against Amazon for
race discrimination. The
court says he was fired for exposing co-workers to COVID during the
pandemic lockdowns.
The Senate Banking Committee
appears likely to
subpoena Sam Bankman-Fried after he
ignored a request to testify regarding the implosion of crypto-currency
exchange FTX.
The FTC is suing to
prevent Microsoft’s acquisition of
Activision, the maker of
Modern Warfare and Candy Crush, as well as Facebook’s acquisition
of virtual reality firm Within.
Apple announced that it will fully
encrypt iCloud data,
raising alarm from law enforcement officials.
States are now joining the federal
government in
banning government employees from
downloading TikTok on
their phones because TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based
in China. Officials are concerned China will gain access to
sensitive data.