Suresh Babu’s Post

The U.S. Supreme Court left Section 230 in place. It's the one provision that's the cause of everything good and terrible about the internet. For now, that means the law continues to provide a liability shield to social media companies like Meta and Twitter among others, allowing them to be separated from the content their users' post. The potential implications for any changes would've been significant, which could've force platforms like Facebook and YouTube to re-examine the ways they use recommendation algorithms to serve users content. The absence of any changes to 230 should come as a huge relief to tech companies hosting content on the internet for a variety of other reasons. Section 230 has essentially become a third rail as it relates to freedom of speech and expression on the internet. For social media companies interested in moderating content on their platform without the constant threat of a looming lawsuit, the ruling basically nixes that at least for now. For the most part, the tech industry has relied on 230 protections to grow since they were first introduced nearly 30 years ago. More importantly, the Supreme Court ruling highlights the court’s nervousness around amending the provision that has come to define the internet. Does this prevent Section 230 from being revisited in the future? Not at all. As society changes and evolves, you can guarantee this won't be the last we'll be hearing about Section 230. With it comes the good and the ill for now https://lnkd.in/gwkd6zn4 #section230 #socialmedia #internet #supremecourt #law #freespeech #technology #algorithms #society

I don’t see any reason why these decisions would inhibit legislating to curb algorithms that steer users to violence or misinformation. On the contrary they should bolster it by assuring a safe business model if prudent algorithms are employed. "Section 230 was a reaction to a decision holding an online message board liable for what a user had posted because the service had engaged in some content moderation. The provision said, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Section 230 helped enable the rise of huge social networks like Facebook and Twitter by ensuring that the sites did not assume legal liability with every new tweet, status update and comment. Limiting the sweep of the law could expose the platforms to lawsuits claiming they had steered people to posts and videos that promoted extremism, urged violence, harmed reputations and caused emotional distress." Supreme Court Won’t Hold Tech Companies Liable for User Posts https://lnkd.in/gWyP7DdW (Subscription Required) #socialmedialiability #misinformation #platformliability #vicariousliability

#ICYMI, as #SCOTUS declines to hear a case that may have impacted Section 230, #socialmedia companies will likely remain protected for the foreseeable future against claims that other entities that publish content must be responsive to. So, status quo for consumers who seek accurate information from social media entities but have no government oversight for protection against #misinformation and little legal recourse in current law. Media literacy education becomes more and more obvious as a need. https://bit.ly/41LE6U1

From the Blogosphere: Concerns about disinformation and political speech bias regarding Online Platforms has led both liberal and conservative politicians to push for limits on Section 230’s protections. However, the immunity it grants has fueled the growth of social media giants like Facebook, Google, and Twitter. In this piece, author Will Macheel (ProMarket) gathers and reviews the opinions of experts on the subject, and asks - Will increasing the liability of internet platforms mitigate disinformation? #techREG #competition #socialmedia #growth #facebook #google #section230 #disinformation #liability

"A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that Defendant, BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC, disclosed its subscribers' personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook via Facebook Tracking Pixel without consent in violation of the Viedo Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The VPPA defines PII to include information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. Defendant denies that it violated any law, but has agreed to the settlement to avoid the uncertainties and exp continuing the case." Is it believable that Globe's personnel did not benefit from violating the VPPA? If Globe disclosed my PII in "VIOLATION" of the VPPA, how can the Globe claim it did not violate the VPPA? If Globe did not have a policy in place to prevent this illegal disclosure, why not? Is GLOBE unaware of the law? Globe should fire its IT and legal teams and hire new teams that know how to comply with the laws, including VPPA. Thank you for your comments. Twitter Elon Musk Linda Yaccarino Boston Herald New York Post The New York Sun Howie Carr The Washington Times Washington Examiner Washington Free Beacon Commentary Magazine National Review #privacyviolation #settlements Legal Tech Industry News MIT Technology Review

✍️Looking for something Similar for AI ? Sec 230 that provides Protection : '...Twenty-six words tucked into a 1996 law overhauling telecommunications have allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giants they are today. A case coming before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, Gonzalez v. Google, challenges this law — namely whether tech companies are liable for the material posted on their platforms. Justices will decide whether the family of an American college student killed in a terror attack in Paris can sue Google, which owns YouTube, over claims that the video platform's recommendation algorithm helped extremists spread their message. READ MORE: Supreme Court considers limits of immunity for social media companies A second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, also focuses on liability, though on different grounds. ...' - Extract 👉Updates & Much more in comments. #uslaw #itcompanies #internet #safeai #litigation #internetforall #law #socialmedia #indianlaw #virtualworlds #lawstudents #skdscans

#DSA Enforcement Immediately! Take a moment to examine the tweet shared by Elad Simchayoff on X (formerly Twitter) at the end of this post. The horrifying events of October 7th serve as a stark reminder of just how perilous social platforms have become in this digital age, with X playing a prominent role in enabling these issues. It's challenging for most of us to recall a time when the rampant spread of anti-Semitism, fake news, defamation, hate speech, racism, and other harmful content was so extensive and unrestricted. This serves as a compelling reason to closely monitor how the European Commission responds to the shortcomings of X in terms of monitoring and preventing the dissemination of such content. This year saw the enactment of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which imposes several critical obligations on providers of online platforms. These include implementing an internal complaint handling system, enhancing safeguards for minors, prohibiting deceptive user interfaces, and promoting transparency in online advertising, such as revising website and platform terms and conditions. Additionally, providers are mandated to promptly act on authorities' notifications of illegal content and accord special consideration to reports from trusted flaggers. This is where European regulation comes into play—dedicated to preserving the principles of trustworthiness, transparency, and democratic values. However, it's alarming to note that X's actions not only fail to meet the requirements set forth by the regulation but also make it easier for such content to proliferate. Just a few weeks ago, on October 12th, the Commission initiated an investigation against X under the DSA (https://lnkd.in/d5jh62WJ). This action was prompted by indications received by the Commission's services regarding the alleged dissemination of illegal content and disinformation. To uphold an "open, democratic, and sustainable society," it is imperative for the Commission to impose substantial sanctions and penalties on this matter— and not sometime in the future but right now.

Ever wondered how social media can impact legal cases? Check out our latest video on 'Social Media Lawsuits' to get an in-depth understanding. From evidence collection to privacy concerns, we've covered it all. Don't miss it! 🔗 https://lnkd.in/dnDXz6Aj #SocialMediaLawsuits #Lezdomedlegal

The US Supreme Court has just issued two opinions that maintain Social Media Legal Shields - two widely watched section 230 cases involving Google and Twitter. The court cast also doubt on efforts to hold social media companies liable for algorithms that push content to users. “The algorithms appear agnostic as to the nature of the content, matching any content (including ISIS’ content) with any user who is more likely to view that content,” he wrote. “The fact that these algorithms matched some ISIS content with some users thus does not convert defendants’ passive assistance into active abetting.” See the opinions here: https://lnkd.in/gQMVsfQS https://lnkd.in/gqKBqbm5 See a brief analysis by BL here:

A simple take on the 230. You have two worlds. The one where you are held liable if you are an accessory to a crime (trafficking, money laundering, fraud, sales of human remains, sales of exotic animals, sales of drugs etc. Then you have the Internet world. Big Techs' World you can say. Where you can be an accessory to a crime, ANY CRIME and never be held responsible. What part of holding a BIG TECH COMPANY responsible for being an accessory to a crime is considered a freedom of speech? We have proof that Facebook knows about the organized crime groups working on their site! And it's only gotten worse. There are several other advocacy groups that can show similar proof, yet 26 years later this law is still intact, with one amendment...to human trafficking. What about all online crimes? Why hasn't this moved forward with the times? Why is our government afraid to touch this law in support of keeping their citizens safe. We can 100% have freedom of speech, but we should never have freedom to get away with murder. Literally. #amendthe230 https://lnkd.in/gTB5vPBF