Gonzalez v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333)

[Diamond72]

Gonzalez v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333) is a pending case at the Supreme Court of the United States which deals with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers, in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers.[1][2] The case was granted certiorari alongside another Section 230 and terrorism-related case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Section 230 gets its day in court

<p>For a law whose central clause contains just twenty-six words, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has generated vast amounts of debate over the past few years. Conservative politicians say the law—which shields online services from liability for the content they host—allows...

www.cjr.org

 

[zippy2006]

Defenders of 230 seem to be repeating ad nauseum that, "The consequences of a just law would be catastrophic!" Consequentialism run amok. It's as if the GDP and a particular conception of the internet are the only admissible criteria.

I especially loved the Washington Post's claim, "The consequences of this 'could be catastrophic,' the Washington Post argues. 'Platforms would likely abandon systems that suggest or prioritize information altogether...'" Not everyone thinks a world without micro-advertising and micro-suggestion would be catastrophic.