geoff: --
amna: Today the supreme court
heard arguments in a case that
has the potential to radically
transform the internet and
social media. John yang explores
the case and it's impact.
John: Amna, the case is about a
law that protects websites from
lawsuits over material posted by
users.
The family of a student killed
in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris
says that immunity should not
apply to the recommendations
YouTube's algorithms make based
on a user's viewing history.
The family says that by
recommending isis-related
content, YouTube acted as a
recruiting platform for the
group.
The law, which is often referred
to as section 230, was written
in 1996, before Google, before
Twitter and before the current
concerns about the spread of
misinformation and hate speech.
Marcia Coyle is the newshour's
supreme court analyst.
She was in the courtroom for
today's too and a half hours of
arguments.
And sheera Frenkel is a tech
reporter for the New York Times.
When the lawyer for the family
was making his case, I think
confusion seemed to be the word
of the day from the justices.
I looked at the transcript, it
was used five times by liberal
and conservative justices.
They were -- there was a lot of
skepticism about his arguments.
.
This is justice Elena Kagan
questioning the attorney.
>> Everybody is trying their
best to figure out how this
statute, which was a
pre-algorithm statute applies in
a post-algorithmic world.
Every time anybody looks at
anything on the internet, there
is an algorithm involved.
Does your position send us down
the road such that 230 really
can't mean anything at all?
>> I don't think so, your honor.
The question as you say,
algorithms are ubiquitous, but
the question is, what does the
defendant do with the algorithm?
John: What is going on there?
Marcia: The family's lawyer was
responding to justice Kagan,
trying to explain how he viewed
these algorithmic
recommendations.
He also called them thumbnails
that YouTube puts on its
website.
He says if these thumbnails
encourage access to information
or videos, in this case, to ISIS
information, and the user has
not requested that information,
then it falls outside of the
statute.
Because it is, in effect, he
argues, in service to ISIS.
John: On the other hand, there
were -- there was skepticism
about Google's argument.
This is just as Canton G brown
Jackson.
>> Isn't it true that that
statute had a more narrow scope
of immunity than courts have,
you know, ultimately interpreted
it to have and that what YouTube
is arguing here today.
The question today is, well, can
we be sued for making
recommendations, that's just not
something the statute was
directed to.
>> That's death by a thousand
cuts, and the internet would
have never gotten off the ground
if anybody could sue every time.
John: She is looking at the text
of the law.
Marcia: She is.
And she sees narrower immunity
for social media platforms.
The Google attorney today is
arguing for the greatest amount
of immunity, obviously for her
client, and other social media
platforms.
She disagreed with justice
Jackson about the history.
.
She said even though congress at
the time that they enacted this
may not have referred to
algorithmic recommendations,
there were analogs to it.
They certainly knew what was
coming on the horizon, and were
able to address it.
John: Does it seem like the
court is not ready to go all the
way on either side?
Marcia: It did absolutely.
The bottom line here is if the
court wants to do something with
this case, it is going to be
drawn into line drawing.
How far does it go to protect
social media platforms?
Or how far does it have to go to
take away some of that immunity?
It is a line drawing difficult
he.
John: And where to draw that
line, a couple of justices
actually asked out loud whether
the supreme court was the right
place to do that.
This is justice Brett Kavanaugh.
>> Isn't it better to keep it
the way it is, for us, and
congress, to put the burden on
congress to change that and they
can consider the implications
and make these predictive
judgments?
John: What has congress been
trying to do about section 230?
Sheera: We have a rare situation
where almost everyone in
congress is united in thinking
that section 230 is an old law
that needs updating.
The problems that Republicans
and Democrats disagree are about
the problems Republicans are
concerned internet companies
have too much control, they are
worried about something they
call conservative bias, the idea
that tech companies routinely
censor conservative voices on
their channels, more than other
voices.
Democrats are worried the
companies are not doing enough
against harmful speech.
Things like misinformation
around elections, Democrats want
to see more done on that.
John: Why does changing this
law, the prospect of changing
the law, make the internet
companies and social media
platforms so nervous?
Sheera: Section 230 has been
what has protected them until
now.
It has said that they are not
publishers, not responsible for
what other people say.
It has let them roll out content
moderation policies that they
see as appropriate.
They decide what is allowed and
not allowed.
But if they missed something,
such as the case was in this
specific trial that is being
heard, they are not punished for
it.
John:john: We have a new pbs
newshour NPR marist poll set to
be released this week.
Found that only 29% of adults
said that the government should
be setting the rules for social
media.
67% said it should be left to
social media companies
themselves.
I would imagine that his music
to silicon valley's ears.
Sheera: I imagine if you are
sitting at Google or Facebook or
Twitter, you are happy to hear
that.
I think people are worried,
rightfully so, about how the
government will decide what
something like hate speech is.
Depending who controls congress
or who sits in the white house,
that could mean something very
different to different political
parties.
There is a reason why people are
worried, if the government makes
these decisions that become
overly politicized.
John: This was the first big
social media case to come before
the court, the first time they
had looked at section 230.
A lot more to come.
There is a case tomorrow, what
is that about?
Marcia: It is a sequel to the
one today.
The Gonzalez family is part of a
case, the case tomorrow that has
two other families.
The underlying claim is that
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter had a
recommendations, content that
violated or encouraged an act of
terror under the anti-terrorism
act.
That is what the court is going
to look at.
The elements of that claim and
whether they can be held liable
under that specific statute.
I should also add that the
content moderation that sheer
mentioned, there are two cases
pending in the court now, the
justices have yet to decide
whether to take them, they are
out of Florida and Texas.
Opposite lower court rulings,
good chance to court might get
into this again.
John: It would probably be in
the term beginning in the fall.
Marcia: That's right.
John: Marcia Coyle sheer
Frenkel and --Marcia Coyle and
sheera Frenkel, thank you both
very much.
Marcia: Pleasure, John.
Sheera: Thank you.
♪♪