PRESIDENT CAN SEAL STILL READS
RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE.
>>> THE SUPREME COURT IS SET TO
HEAR TWO CASES THIS WEEK THAT
COULD SHAPE THE FUTURE OF
INTERNET CONTENT AND HOW IT IS
MODERATED.
WHETHER SOCIAL MEDIA AND TECH
COMPANIES CAN BE VIABLE.
>> FOR MORE ON WHAT WE CAN
EXPECT, LET'S BRING IN DANNY CEBALLOS AND THE WALL STREET
CEBALLOS AND THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL REPORTER, SAM HAGAN.
GOOGLE VERSUS GONZALES, A LOT
OF INTEREST IN THIS ONE.
HER PARENTS ARE MAKING THIS
ARGUMENT.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE CASE?
>> THE FAMILY HAS SUED YOUTUBE
OR GOOGLE.
AND ANOTHER ONE AGAINST TWITTER.
THEY HAVE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
GOALS BUT VERY SIMILAR FACTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE YOUTUBE
CASE, THE PLAINTIFFS ARE SAYING
THAT YOUTUBE AIDED AND ABETTED
TERRORISM BY ITS RECOMMENDATION
ON THE RHYTHM.
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GO ON YOUTUBE
AND IT RECOMMENDS NEW THINGS
AND AUTOMATICALLY PLAYS THEM?
THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ARGUING THAT
BY MAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATION
, GOOGLE IS AIDING AND ABETTING
TERRORISM. GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE
ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
YOUTUBE IS ARGUING NO,T IS
JUST AN ALGORITHM AND AS LONG
AS WE TREAT ALL PEOPLE THE
SAME, WE SHOULD BE IN THE CLEAR.
THE TWITTER CASE IS INTERESTING
ONLY BECAUSE THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOUND FOR THE FAMILIES NOT THAT THEY WENT BUT THAT THE CASE
THEY WENT BUT THAT THE CASE
GOES FORWARD.
YOUTUBE HAS WON IN THE GONZALES
CASE AT EVERY LEVEL SO IT WILL
BE INTERESTING AND WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT DOES.
IN FACT LET'S BRING YOU INTO
THE CONVERSATION.
THE TECH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN
CRITICIZED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH
TO REMOVE HARMFUL MATERIAL.
CAN YOU TELL US HOW COMPANIES
ARE SHIELDED UNDER THE DECENCY
ACT?
>> THIS GOES ON FOR MORE THAN
25 YEARS AND CONGRESS WAS
DECIDING HOW THE INTERNET WOULD
OPERATE.
WOULD IT BE A NEWSPAPER OR A
TELEVISION STATION THAT CAN BE
HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION OR
OTHER LEGAL ISSUES OR IS IT
GOING TO BE MORE LIKE TOWNSQUARE
WHERE VOICES CAN GO AND BE HEARD
AND THE TOWNSQUARE IS NOT GOING
TO GET SUED.
IF I WAS ON THE PHONE, YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUE
AT&T.
THAT IS KIND OF THE WAY
CONGRESS WENT, TOWNSQUARE AND
REALLY THE FOUNDATION FOR WHAT
WE HAVE IS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
AND ALL OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES AND WHAT HAS CHANGED
IS THE BUSINESS MODEL.
THESE COMPANIES ARE SO
SOPHISTICATED THAT NOW, THE
QUESTION IS, IS THE ALGORITHM
THAT IS GENERATING THIS CONTENT
TO YOU, IS THAT PROTECTED?
SO REALLY, A KEY KIND OF GOING
FORWARD BECAUSE THIS IS
SUPPOSED TO BE NARROW IN SOME
WAY.
THAT COULD BE VERY COSTLY AND
TIME-CONSUMING FOR THIS COMPANY
TO REDO THIRD-PARTY CONTENT.
>> WE KNOW TWITTER IS GETTING A
LOT OF ATTENTION INCLUDING THIS
CASE COMING UP ON WEDNESDAY.
WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW HOW IT
DIFFERS FROM THE ONE ON GOOGLE?
>> EVEN THE PARTIES SEEM TO
AGREE THAT THESE CASES ARE
NEARLY IDENTICAL BUT IN THE
TWITTER CASE, THE FAMILIES
SUING TWITTER GENERALLY
ALLEGING THAT TWITTER AIDED AND
ABETTED TERRORISM UNDER ANTI
TERRORISM LAWS WHICH ALLOWS THE
FAMILY TO SUE IN COURT AND GET
TRIPLE DAMAGES. THAT CASE IS MOVING FORWARD.
THAT CASE IS MOVING FORWARD.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WIN.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
YOUTUBE CASES, THAT IS ABOUT
ALGORITHM.
THERE IS A MORE CONCRETE CASE
THERE THAT IT IS ASSISTING
TERRORISM IN THAT IT RECOMMENDS
THINGS TO TERRORISTS TO WATCH
TO HELP THEM.
NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO WIN BUT THAT THEIR
CASES HAVE MOVED FORWARD. IF
THE COURT COMES DOWN ON THE
SIDE OF THE FAMILY IN BOTH OF
THESE CASES, IT COULD CHANGE
THE INTERNET THE WAY WE KNOW IT
BECAUSE WHAT PLATFORM IN THEIR
RIGHT MIND WOULD ALLOW ANYONE
TO USE USER GENERATED CONTENT
IF THEY KNOW THEY MAY BE LIABLE
DOWN THE ROAD FOR TERRORISM.
WE WOULD EXPECT A DECISION BY
THE END OF JUNE. WHAT ARE THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS?
HOW WILL THIS CASE POTENTIALLY
SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE
INTERNET?
>> MICROSOFT AND THEY WARNING
IN ONE OF ITS FILINGS, INEVITABLY, THESE PLATFORMS ARE
INEVITABLY, THESE PLATFORMS ARE
GOING TO ALLOW LESS INFORMATION
FROM THIRD PARTIES OUT ON THE
SIDES JUST BECAUSE OF THE
POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
THE OTHER CONCERN IS KIND OF
THE LITIGATION THAT THESE
COMPANIES ARE FACING GOING INTO
THE FUTURE.
YOU CAN IMAGINE ALL OF THE
CONTENT ON THERE AND WHAT WOULD
GENERATE A LAWSUIT.
KIND OF THE TIME-CONSUMING OF
ALL OF THAT AND THE IDEA THAT
PLATFORMS WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR
THEM TO KIND OF CREATE AS YOU
SEE NOW.
THE CONCERNS THERE ARE THAT IT