Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts’ Post

SCOTUS preserves Section 230 This decision on Section 230 ("Supreme Court rules for Google, Twitter on terror-related content") is a very important one--note that it's unanimous. I had written about this a few months ago, that this case was in consideration before the Court and a different outcome would have eroded the publisher-distributor liability safeguards of Section 230. This should make networks and online platforms more hands off in their approach to preserve their immunity and let the responsibility lie with the originator. Please see my previous post on this topic for a more extended discussion. https://lnkd.in/gcY_DpSp)

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

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

#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

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

Why the Supreme Court tiptoeing past a key social media shield helps Big Tech FILE - Reynaldo Gonzalez breaks down while remembering his daughter Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the Paris attacks in November, at her funeral at the Calvary Chapel in Downey, Calif., Dec.... Read more on Siliconeer. #SupremeCourt #SocialMedia #shield #APPhotoArchives #bigtech #APNews

The #OnlineSafetyBill is a new set of laws to protect children and adults online, but what does it actually mean in practice? In this blog post, we explain the main aspects of the new law and what it means for social media companies and internet users. https://lnkd.in/eY-52f9B

The Unbearably High Cost of Cutting Trust & Safety Corners. In 2023, social media companies decided to cut corners by laying off thousands of employees who were experts on combating abusive behaviors and harmful content. Laying experts off may have saved these companies money in the short term – but at what cost, and will these cuts come back to haunt them? #Cilter #protectingchildrenonline https://lnkd.in/e8FNV9ev

Prosecutors and law enforcement typically have greater access to social media and have an easier time authenticating social media data. Defendants are gradually gaining some success in obtaining authentication from social media companies, but their access remains severely restricted. While social media discovery is becoming more common, defense attorneys can still seek to limit access to their clients' private social media by challenging the scope of discovery. https://lnkd.in/gaXZHeJ6 #criminaldefense #socialmedia #data #privacy

⏰ TIME TO REGISTER 📅 Nov 2 Webinar What would you do if your agency’s official social media accounts got hacked? How would you let your community know? How would you get control back? And what can you do to prevent it? 👉Join us on Nov 2 when Sarah Boyd will provide those answers from someone whose agency experienced a large-scale, international hack of their Facebook page. You’ll learn about prevention strategies, key contacts at social media platforms, informing your followers, recovery plans, and more. Register Soon! Katie Nelson Kate Kimble Nelly Miles Dara Nelson #socialmedia #PIO #lawenforcement #criminaljustice #socialmediahack